Would you kill Jesus?

[data_link]

You are Mary. You have just given birth to a baby boy, who you have called Jesus. Upon questioning, you told your husband that an angel was responsible for your pregnancy. Amazingly, he believes you.

Following that, a time traveler fron the year 2002 tells you the entire history of Christianity. Further, he informs you that you can stop this, but only by killing your own son. Any other actions you will take will only result in Jesus becoming even more delusional, and history will not be substantially affected. For the purposes of this debate, assume that he is absolutely right about this.

The question is: do you kill Jesus?

[Enforcer Talen]

hm. . .angel telling it's the son of god. . . second figure in strange clothes saying it will be the death of millions. . .

I think mary will be visiting a shrink.

[Joe]

Sure, because killing an innocent child (your son, at that) in cold blood is OK when you have a really good reason.

HELL NO.

Seriously, even if I went through with it another religion would just take its place.

[MKSheppard]

Seriously, even if I went through with it another religion would just take its place.

Yeah. Time Travel is like that.

[Howedar]

Hell fucking no.

[data_link]

Sure, because killing an innocent child (your son, at that) in cold blood is OK when you have a really good reason.

Are you implying that this is fallacious logic? Please explain.

[Shinova]

I voted no.


However, it is surprising that more people haven't said yes.

[Darth Wong]

Sure, because killing an innocent child (your son, at that) in cold blood is OK when you have a really good reason.

HELL NO.

In her situation, the answer would have to be no, because she has no way of knowing if this guy is telling the truth.

However, if we disregard the credibility issue and look at the question logically, the answer would be yes, because the deaths of millions and massive prolonged retardation of scientific and philosophical development cause monstrous amounts of human suffering. If all of that could be averted by the death of one person, it is most certainly worth it. Is that person currently innocent? Yes. Are all the millions who suffer for him also innocent? Yes. It would be the lesser of two evils.

Seriously, even if I went through with it another religion would just take its place.

Justify that assumption, as well as the implicit assumption that this religion would be just as bad. Expansionist monotheism is hardly common to all the world's religions.

[Joe]

Let me ask you this, data; if you had just carried a little child in you for nine months and brought him/her into the world, and then some asshole with no evidence came along claiming that your child would be unintentionally responsible for a series of horrible atrocities and demanded you kill him/her, could you do it?

[MKSheppard]

However, if we disregard the credibility issue and look at the question logically, the answer would be yes, because the deaths of millions and massive prolonged retardation of scientific and philosophical development cause monstrous amounts of human suffering

Do you have any evidence that another religion WONT take up the
slack left by Christanity's stillborn death?

All the guy will be doing is exchanging one religion for another religion in 2002.

Me, I'd go back and give Adolf a scholarship to an art school in Linz....

Of course, the time stream would probably fuck me over by having
the art school burn down...and Adolf would go back to his evil old
ways..

[Joe]

Sure, because killing an innocent child (your son, at that) in cold blood is OK when you have a really good reason.

HELL NO.

In her situation, the answer would have to be no, because she has no way of knowing if this guy is telling the truth.

However, if we disregard the credibility issue and look at the question logically, the answer would be yes, because the deaths of millions and massive prolonged retardation of scientific and philosophical development cause monstrous amounts of human suffering. If all of that could be averted by the death of one person, it is most certainly worth it. Is that person currently innocent? Yes. Are all the millions who suffer for him also innocent? Yes. It would be the lesser of two evils.

Seriously, even if I went through with it another religion would just take its place.

Justify that assumption, as well as the implicit assumption that this religion would be just as bad. Expansionist monotheism is hardly common to all the world's religions.

I still wouldn't do it. Absolute ethics.

As for my implicit assumption, I will concede that I have no way to prove that another religion would take its place and be just as bad. I was just throwing out a thought on the matter.

I will however, say that human savagery and bloodlust would have found another way to express itself without Christianity, as it has in the 20th Century.

[SeebianWurm]

"Confusion of Burden of Proof"

You have to prove it would. But he doesn't have to prove it wouldn't.

Moron.

[Joe]

I'm not telling him to prove anything, turbo. I ADMITTED that I couldn't prove it.

[Darth Wong]

Do you have any evidence that another religion WONT take up the slack left by Christanity's stillborn death?

Demanding proof of a negative? I just might have to revise my assessment of your intelligence downwards, Shep.

All the guy will be doing is exchanging one religion for another religion in 2002.

If Christianity were supplanted by Buddhism, we would not have had Crusades or Inquisitions. Not all religions are created equal.

Me, I'd go back and give Adolf a scholarship to an art school in Linz....

Of course, the time stream would probably fuck me over by having the art school burn down...and Adolf would go back to his evil old ways..

What Adolf needed was a girlfriend in his youth. I think people greatly underestimate the social problems that have resulted from guys who couldn't get laid.

[Evil Sadistic Bastard]

Wong, i say it would be better to replace the current idiots with the moderates, the ones who actually follow the spirit of the religion rather than the letter.

A lot of the zealots are extremely aggressive in their ways and are general pains. But the moderates aren't so bad. AT least, where I come from.

[Darth Wong]

I will however, say that human savagery and bloodlust would have found another way to express itself without Christianity, as it has in the 20th Century.

True enough, although it would not necessarily be just as bad. Lest we forget, Nazism was violent Christianity's last gasp.

But this doesn't change the parameters of the question. One could say the same about Stalinism (if it never happened, mankind would still be ruthless and violent and other horrible things might have happened), but that doesn't change the fact that it was a bad movement which caused Very Bad Things, and if we could do something about it retroactively, we would try.

[Ghost Rider]

Hmmm if Hitler got laid.....well that would be an interesting tangent.

As for the original...no because on one hand he is your son and some unknown person tells you what will happen but with no way of proving it other than his word.

I'd like to have anyone try that with any mother and see how fast they would get bitch slappped.

[Joe]

If I could go back in time and do something to Hitler, I would just find a way to make the Judges who tried Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch give him a sentence that would have kept him in jail for a very, very long time. Treason is a pretty serious crime, and Hitler was let off very easily.

[Shinova]

About something in one of Wong's post:


I thought about that Buddhism replacing Christianity thing and I realized something. If Buddhism were to become widespread in place of Christianity, many of our great nations may not exist today.

Buddhism seeks to repel material wealth, yet many of our nations were built on the desire for material wealth. It's the drive--the drive to succeed that helped build some of our nations. With Buddhism, that drive is seen as evil.

Millions wouldn't die under Buddhism, but is a much more primitive modern world worth those millions? Our technology gave us medicine among other things that help extend human lifespan and make people's life better. With Buddhism, you probably won't have much of that, therefore millions, perhaps billions, die from lack of medicine and poor hygiene.

Just an idea that popped into my head.

[beyond hope]

Jesus deserves to die because of what future generations of followers did with his teachings? I can't accept that... people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. A lot of blood has been shed in the name of Christianity, but lay that blame where it belongs, at the feet of the people who gave the orders or went out to murder.

[beyond hope]

If I could go back in time and do something to Hitler, I would just find a way to make the Judges who tried Hitler after the Beer Hall Putsch give him a sentence that would have kept him in jail for a very, very long time. Treason is a pretty serious crime, and Hitler was let off very easily.

Same is true for a lot of right-wing radicals in Germany at the time: the courts were pretty lenient on anyone who wasn't a communist or leftist.

[Joe]

About something in one of Wong's post:


I thought about that Buddhism replacing Christianity thing and I realized something. If Buddhism were to become widespread in place of Christianity, many of our great nations may not exist today.

Buddhism seeks to repel material wealth, yet many of our nations were built on the desire for material wealth. It's the drive--the drive to succeed that helped build some of our nations. With Buddhism, that drive is seen as evil.

Millions wouldn't die under Buddhism, but is a much more primitive modern world worth those millions? Our technology gave us medicine among other things that help extend human lifespan and make people's life better. With Buddhism, you probably won't have much of that, therefore millions, perhaps billions, die from lack of medicine and poor hygiene.

Just an idea that popped into my head.

Scripture says that money is the root of all evil, too. Lots of hatred for interest, also, but that's common.

[Darth Wong]

I thought about that Buddhism replacing Christianity thing and I realized something. If Buddhism were to become widespread in place of Christianity, many of our great nations may not exist today.

And this is a bad thing? Nations are just lines on a map, dividing political spheres of influence.

Millions wouldn't die under Buddhism, but is a much more primitive modern world worth those millions?

Buddhism wouldn't produce a more primitive world. It is against greed and violence, but not against science. We would most likely have a MORE advanced world if Buddhism had replaced Christianity, because we wouldn't have had a thousand years of active persecution of free thinkers and scientists. Would Buddhists have imprisoned Galileo and forced him to recant upon pain of death?

Our technology gave us medicine among other things that help extend human lifespan and make people's life better. With Buddhism, you probably won't have much of that, therefore millions, perhaps billions, die from lack of medicine and poor hygiene.

Just an idea that popped into my head.

Based on the assumption that Buddhism would be even more destructive to science than Christianity was. That's a pretty poor assumption.

[Darth Wong]

Jesus deserves to die because of what future generations of followers did with his teachings? I can't accept that... people are ultimately responsible for their own actions. A lot of blood has been shed in the name of Christianity, but lay that blame where it belongs, at the feet of the people who gave the orders or went out to murder.

Jesus does not deserve to die because of what future generations do in his name. But his death would be the lesser of two evils, so it would still be a good idea.

To quote the Almighty Clint, "deserve's got nothin' to do with it".

[beyond hope]

It's been a long time since I learned about the origins of the church, but I seem to remember Peter being the one who really gave the early church a lot of it's character: I'd submit that he'd be a much better target, by virtue of actually having shaped what the church turned into.