Christian Trap...

[Ted C]

seriously, if god exists and hes asking people to kill babies, hes either a psychopathic fucker, or hes doing to to see how psychopathic his followers are.

He supposedly made just such a request at least once.

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

[Ted C]

The problem is that you see death as the end. We do not. If the baby is innocent, it goes to a better place and God is right to order it. If the baby is not innocent, it goes where it deserves to go and God is right to order it. The problem is that you think this world is all there is and that this existence is the best possible. We do not. Therein lies the important difference.

The we should kill all babies while they're still innocent, so they get into heaven before they have a chance to get into trouble, right? Or is that evil? Or are babies born with "original sin", so that killing them automatically sends them to hell?

[Ted C]

If the baby is truly innocent, or has a desire in its heart to follow God, it will go to a far better place and the death will have been good for it. If the baby has no such desire and is instead destined for evil, then it is going where it would end up anyway, without the chance to inflict that evil on the world.

So God has already determined whether any individual infant will go to heaven or hell? Why bother with all the preaching and proselytizing, then?

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, for Jesus, you could argue that as the Incarnation, he was restrcited by the tolerances of human hands, so this works. If you were talking about Jesus in fully heavenly form, I would say that the question is a non-sequiteur and has no answer as it isn't really a question, but rather an intrinsic possability, a contradiction, a padadox.

Ade you sude it's a padadox, didl' buddy?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The problem is that you see death as the end. We do not. If the baby is innocent, it goes to a better place and God is right to order it. If the baby is not innocent, it goes where it deserves to go and God is right to order it. The problem is that you think this world is all there is and that this existence is the best possible. We do not. Therein lies the important difference.

This line of thinking can be used to justify any concievable action, no matter how atrocious. If Hitler had this justification for the Holocaust he'd be an OK guy in your book.

That's a lie. I came up with the question my self because it looked like you were incapable of understanding what I was saying. I was never pressurised into it, which is easily seen by reading the thread.

All of which is irrelevant to whether or not you would kill an innocent infant.

The problem is that you see death as the end. We do not. If the baby is innocent, it goes to a better place and God is right to order it. If the baby is not innocent, it goes where it deserves to go and God is right to order it. The problem is that you think this world is all there is and that this existence is the best possible. We do not. Therein lies the important difference.

Yes, that of evidence and justice. It is only when one uses human life, in this reality, as a standard can any sort of objective justice be obtained. When you accept "God" as an arbiter of justice and morality any action becomes justifiable, in that you've dismissed all objective standards of value and evidence. Under this system any nut would be justified in any action if he claimed God's sanction; and since objective standands of evidence and justice would be dismissed, who would we be to say differently?

False dilemma. Omniscience is not necessary to believe that God would never ask such a thing. For instance, I know that God would never ask me to exclusively worship the devil. Or worship him at all for that matter.

Don't play semantic bullshit. I said you can't know with absolute certainty, not believe. You can believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary; absolute certainty requires omniscience. Thus the point remains that you do not know, with absolute certainty, that God will not ask you to do this.

It holds plenty of water because it is not our right choose when people die. We don't know what God has planned for their lives. Note that the argument is over God asking us to kill babies and I feel that he would only have done that in pre-Jesus times.

Emotions are not forms of evidence. I'm sure God (if he exists) will go on with his plan regardless of what you feel on the matter. In fact for all you know those abortions could have been ordered directly by God. Think about it, a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is stopped by a Christian picket line, she justifies her actions to them by saying "God told me to get an abortion". Regardless of their feelings on the matter they would have no valid counter-arguement or means of justifiying otherwise. The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.

No, because they would only do it if God told them to. They would have no inclination to do it themselves. And you are no omniscient, so you don't know what is in that baby's heart or what it's future holds. You don't know what evil might come from it's life or what cruelty it might be spared by being killed now. And we see this life as a mere blip in our existence. Death is not the end, but the transition from prologue to the real story. If the baby is truly innocent, or has a desire in its heart to follow God, it will go to a far better place and the death will have been good for it. If the baby has no such desire and is instead destined for evil, then it is going where it would end up anyway, without the chance to inflict that evil on the world.

Nice speech, too bad it condradicts the Biblically verifed theory of free will. That baby is nothing but innocent (other the Original Sin in your book- which is eliminated by babtism) until it actually commits a "Sin". Thus you will be depriving that INNOCENT child of life.

The fact remains that you either have to obey God and kill the perfectly innocent infant, or know better then God and not kill the infant. You can't use predestination as a cop out because free will directly contradicts the idea.

Ultimatly the choice comes down to reject logic and evidence, and things that are abstracted from them, such as life as a value, or reject faith as means of obtaining value and truth, and dismiss either God's existence or his moral authority.

Make your choice now Johnathan, either admit freely to all that you reject faith in the face or reason or that you reject reason in the face of faith. You can't have both.

[Jonathan]

Direct hit! Looks like the good Baron has delt a mighty blow! Will Jonnie be smart enought to recover(Probably not)?

It's not a matter of intellect, though if there was anyone from ASVS here Im could refer to the great Kynes vs. Boyd 'I'm smarter than you' pissing match from several years ago. I can just imagine how much worse that would be today. We're both arrogant little so and sos :^)

Did Kynes every post here? Real name was Ian Samuel.

[Jonathan]

Note that the argument is over God asking us to kill babies and I feel that he would only have done that in pre-Jesus times.

But if a deity only starts acting in a benign way millennia after he started existing, what does that say about him??

I don't know. The God I believe in has always acted in a loving way.

[Jonathan]

Why do I get the feeling that Jonathan has only read the Bible in English.

I've never learnt Hebrew or Greek, my French is rusty, I never knew enough German and my vague smattering of latin wouldn't get me far. I am, however, aware of a few Greek and Hebrew words, have notes which refer to them and have studied with those who know Greek or Hebrew. Why do you ask?

[Baron Scarpia]

The answer should be obvious. Any decent Christian would disobey God's command to kill an innocent. After all, it is one of the noblest Christian sentiments to sacrifice one's self for another, isn't it? So if one's refusal to obey God's command to kill an innocent baby means that one is damned for it, it is the ultimate sacrifice: sacrificing one's own soul for the life an innocent child.

*Sniff* It's so beautiful...

[Jonathan]

The we should kill all babies while they're still innocent, so they get into heaven before they have a chance to get into trouble, right? Or is that evil? Or are babies born with "original sin", so that killing them automatically sends them to hell?

We aren't judges, so we don't kill people. It's not our place. And we don't know what God intends for someone's life. He can be glorified by actions in this world, so it is right that babies grow up to make their choices.

[neoolong]

Why do I get the feeling that Jonathan has only read the Bible in English.

I've never learnt Hebrew or Greek, my French is rusty, I never knew enough German and my vague smattering of latin wouldn't get me far. I am, however, aware of a few Greek and Hebrew words, have notes which refer to them and have studied with those who know Greek or Hebrew. Why do you ask?

Because most fundies only read it in English, or at least only translated versions. That's where the thinking homosexuality is a sin comes from. Because it sure isn't in the originals.

[neoolong]

The we should kill all babies while they're still innocent, so they get into heaven before they have a chance to get into trouble, right? Or is that evil? Or are babies born with "original sin", so that killing them automatically sends them to hell?

We aren't judges, so we don't kill people. It's not our place. And we don't know what God intends for someone's life. He can be glorified by actions in this world, so it is right that babies grow up to make their choices.

If God has an intention for someone's life, that means they cannot grow up to make choices based on complete free will. After all, God already has intentions that influenced how that person would turn out.

[Baron Scarpia]

The we should kill all babies while they're still innocent, so they get into heaven before they have a chance to get into trouble, right? Or is that evil? Or are babies born with "original sin", so that killing them automatically sends them to hell?

We aren't judges, so we don't kill people. It's not our place. And we don't know what God intends for someone's life. He can be glorified by actions in this world, so it is right that babies grow up to make their choices.

If God has an intention for someone's life, that means they cannot grow up to make choices based on complete free will. After all, God already has intentions that influenced how that person would turn out.

God does not have free will, either. If he is omniscient, he therefore knows everything that will be and has no power to change it. Therefore he is it not omnipotent.

[Jonathan]

This line of thinking can be used to justify any concievable action, no matter how atrocious. If Hitler had this justification for the Holocaust he'd be an OK guy in your book.

No he wouldn't because he's not God. Only God has the right to give and take life. We don't decide when it should happen.

All of which is irrelevant to whether or not you would kill an innocent infant.

I didn't claim it was. It was in reply to his accusations that I was forced into things. He was claiming intellectual dishonesty and a lack of integrity on my part, when in fact it lies on his.

Yes, that of evidence and justice. It is only when one uses human life, in this reality, as a standard can any sort of objective justice be obtained.

Why do you say that?

When you accept "God" as an arbiter of justice and morality any action becomes justifiable, in that you've dismissed all objective standards of value and evidence.

I would say that God, being unchanging and perfectly moral, would be the objective standard.

Under this system any nut would be justified in any action if he claimed God's sanction; and since objective standands of evidence and justice would be dismissed, who would we be to say differently?

God his told us what is right and wrong in the Bible. If someone claims to be doing God's will, yet does something contradictory to it, then he's clearly lying. Just because somebody makes a claim doesn't mean it's true.

Don't play semantic bullshit. I said you can't know with absolute certainty, not believe. You can believe something in spite of evidence to the contrary; absolute certainty requires omniscience. Thus the point remains that you do not know, with absolute certainty, that God will not ask you to do this.

God has told us certain things about his character, so I know that he will never say certain things. if you're talking about absolute certainty in the sense that requires omniscience, then why do you trust anything science tells you? You're the one playing semantics games here.

Emotions are not forms of evidence./quote]

Now who's playing semantics games? Would you prefer it if I said that 'Due to the evidence of the Bible, I believe that' instead of 'I feel that'?

I'm sure God (if he exists) will go on with his plan regardless of what you feel on the matter. In fact for all you know those abortions could have been ordered directly by God. Think about it, a woman goes to an abortion clinic and is stopped by a Christian picket line, she justifies her actions to them by saying "God told me to get an abortion". Regardless of their feelings on the matter they would have no valid counter-arguement or means of justifiying otherwise.

Yes they would. People lie. People get things wrong. Just because people say 'God told me' doesn't mean he did.

The only course they could possibly take would be to deny that God did such a thing, and since they would have dismissed reason as inferior to faith in the first place, they would have no means of proving otherwise.

Rubbish. Reason is a part of faith and if a claim is contradictory to what the Bible says, then we can know it to be wrong.

Nice speech, too bad it condradicts the Biblically verifed theory of free will.

Err, no it doesn't.

That baby is nothing but innocent (other the Original Sin in your book- which is eliminated by babtism) until it actually commits a "Sin". Thus you will be depriving that INNOCENT child of life.

Infant baptism does nothing to get rid of sin. The Bible clearly says that sin is removed only by seeking forgiveness from God through Jesus. And besides, not everyone is going to have been baptised.

The fact remains that you either have to obey God and kill the perfectly innocent infant, or know better then God and not kill the infant.

False dilemma. The infant could be guilty. And God knows best. Death is not the end. An innocent child would go to heaven; a better place. Spared the evils of this life.

You can't use predestination as a cop out because free will directly contradicts the idea.

No it doesn't.

Ultimatly the choice comes down to reject logic and evidence, and things that are abstracted from them, such as life as a value, or reject faith as means of obtaining value and truth, and dismiss either God's existence or his moral authority.

Make your choice now Johnathan, either admit freely to all that you reject faith in the face or reason or that you reject reason in the face of faith. You can't have both.

Yes I can, and do. You are so arrogant, to assume that all those who have faith must be illogical and unreasonable. You look down your noses at us, sneering, claiming you are superior, discussing ways to wipe us out, calling God a psychopath, yet approving of a guy who resorts to violence when faced with insults. You call us close minded and intolerant, yet close off any idea of faith and look for ways to repress our expression of ourselves. Arrogant hypocrites, that is what so many of you are.

[Jonathan]

Why do I get the feeling that Jonathan has only read the Bible in English.

I've never learnt Hebrew or Greek, my French is rusty, I never knew enough German and my vague smattering of latin wouldn't get me far. I am, however, aware of a few Greek and Hebrew words, have notes which refer to them and have studied with those who know Greek or Hebrew. Why do you ask?

Because most fundies only read it in English, or at least only translated versions. That's where the thinking homosexuality is a sin comes from. Because it sure isn't in the originals.

Yes it is. I've known people fluent in Greek and Hebrew sho say that homosexual acts are sins. It's very clear from Genesis that sex is intended for man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. And there are plenty of other occassions where it is condemned.

[Baron Scarpia]

I call bullshit. Quote me ONE passage from the Bible that condemns woman-woman sex.

[neoolong]

I've never learnt Hebrew or Greek, my French is rusty, I never knew enough German and my vague smattering of latin wouldn't get me far. I am, however, aware of a few Greek and Hebrew words, have notes which refer to them and have studied with those who know Greek or Hebrew. Why do you ask?

Because most fundies only read it in English, or at least only translated versions. That's where the thinking homosexuality is a sin comes from. Because it sure isn't in the originals.

Yes it is. I've known people fluent in Greek and Hebrew sho say that homosexual acts are sins. It's very clear from Genesis that sex is intended for man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman. And there are plenty of other occassions where it is condemned.

Funny how the word homosexual nor homosexuality is ever used.

If you're so sure, find a passage in the original text and then a direct translation that says that it is wrong. Post both.

[Jonathan]

If God has an intention for someone's life, that means they cannot grow up to make choices based on complete free will. After all, God already has intentions that influenced how that person would turn out.

He knows how people will live their lives and what choices they will make. That forms part of his plan.

[Jonathan]

I call bullshit. Quote me ONE passage from the Bible that condemns woman-woman sex.

Romans 1:26. Homosexual behaviour is condemned. It is condemned in the case of men because it is not the natural behaviour - sex is intended to be between man and woman. The same reason would make woman-woman sex wrong.

[Jonathan]

Funny how the word homosexual nor homosexuality is ever used.

Quit being arrogant. You've made a bunch of claims with nothing to bck you up so far.

If you're so sure, find a passage in the original text and then a direct translation that says that it is wrong. Post both.

Dozens of Bible translators have made the translation. You are claiming they are wrong. You prove it.

[neoolong]

If God has an intention for someone's life, that means they cannot grow up to make choices based on complete free will. After all, God already has intentions that influenced how that person would turn out.

He knows how people will live their lives and what choices they will make. That forms part of his plan.

That isn't free will if he knows exactly how things will turn out.

[Baron Scarpia]

I call bullshit. Quote me ONE passage from the Bible that condemns woman-woman sex.

Romans 1:26. Homosexual behaviour is condemned. It is condemned in the case of men because it is not the natural behaviour - sex is intended to be between man and woman. The same reason would make woman-woman sex wrong.

That's a cop out and you know it. The passage SPECIFICALLY refers to male-male acts. Not female-female.

Additionally, that's Paul's rantings. Not the word of God, unlike Leviticus supposedly is.

And most scholars acknowledge the Old Testament prohibitions towards man-man sex was in reference to it being a traditional part of Pagan religious rites, not any sort of romantic relationship (since there was no concept of homosexuality until the 19th century).

An alternative interpretation of the passage is that the "abomination" is actually two men having sex in a woman's bed, not altogether.

[neoolong]

Funny how the word homosexual nor homosexuality is ever used.

Quit being arrogant. You've made a bunch of claims with nothing to bck you up so far.

Fine. Read the entire untranslated Bible. You will find homosexual and homosexuality to never appear.

If you're so sure, find a passage in the original text and then a direct translation that says that it is wrong. Post both.

Dozens of Bible translators have made the translation. You are claiming they are wrong. You prove it.

Okay. Read the entire untranslaged Bible. You will find homosexual and homosexuality never appear. Thus it cannot explicitily state that it is a sin, without there being a mistranslation.

[Dalton]

Did Kynes every post here? Real name was Ian Samuel.

Kynes posted here once as Kynes last year.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that you see death as the end. We do not. If the baby is innocent, it goes to a better place and God is right to order it. If the baby is not innocent, it goes where it deserves to go and God is right to order it. The problem is that you think this world is all there is and that this existence is the best possible. We do not. Therein lies the important difference.

Precisely. Your belief system condones evil by rationalizing it away in its own dogmas. That is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along. The definition of an evil belief system is one which makes it possible to condone evil acts, and yours fits the bill perfectly.

But what can one expect from one who would have no problem slaughtering babies if God asked him to?