Christian Trap...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I was thinking about the "Christian School" thread and I realized that the thread provided the perfect opportunity to trap Christians with their own words.

You simply ask them "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" (An ordinary baby for the record, not an evil one.)

If they answer Yes, then they admit that they are sociopaths.

If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm sure most Christian's will try to wiggle out of dilema, but the trap seems pretty solid to me.

Thoughts people?

[Enforcer Talen]

time to annoy fam with it.

[The Dark]

My personal response would be "yes, but only if I could be absolutely certain that it was not merely my own delusional mind lashing out against my conscience."

[jegs2]

*SNIP*

Thoughts people?

In the words of Raymond from Everybody Loves Raymond, "That's stupid." But .......... if God ever commands me to kill a baby, I'll be sure to let you know.

[Hethrir]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

[kojikun]

i think gods commanding to kill babies is his way of determining which fuckers are really good enough to get eternal happiness when they die.

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.

[Enforcer Talen]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

conundrum.

[The Dark]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

I've heard that one argued as being a logical impossibility. It's like the immovable object and the unstoppable force: they cannot both exist in the same universe, under dictate of logic.

[Enforcer Talen]

we dont need your steenking logic.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

I've heard that one argued as being a logical impossibility. It's like the immovable object and the unstoppable force: they cannot both exist in the same universe, under dictate of logic.

God has asked his followers to kill many times, doing so again is hardly beyond imagination.

[The Dark]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

I've heard that one argued as being a logical impossibility. It's like the immovable object and the unstoppable force: they cannot both exist in the same universe, under dictate of logic.

God has asked his followers to kill many times, doing so again is hardly beyond imagination.

Sorry, wasn't clear. I was speaking about the rock conundrum. That one's a logical impossibility. As far as an order to kill, I would have to be certain I wasn't hallucinating or some such mental disorder. I personally doubt such an order would ever occur again, but as you say it is not a complete impossibility.

[Darth Wong]

I was thinking about the "Christian School" thread and I realized that the thread provided the perfect opportunity to trap Christians with their own words.

You simply ask them "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" (An ordinary baby for the record, not an evil one.)

If they answer Yes, then they admit that they are sociopaths.

If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm sure most Christian's will try to wiggle out of dilema, but the trap seems pretty solid to me.

Thoughts people?

If you watched me tangle with Jonathan Boyd, you would have observed that he stubbornly refused to address the question, and insisted on claiming that it was impossible for God to ask such a thing even though he'd done so before, because everything's supposedly changed since Christ came along (I have no problem with this popular belief, but when it's accompanied by a stubborn insistence that God never changes and the Bible is absolute truth, one must wonder what kind of self-delusion can generate such profound contradictions while refusing to acknowledge their existence). However, simply repeating the question and rubbing his nose in it eventually pressured him into accepting a modified version in which he is transported to 500BC, when God was still very much into baby-killing.

If you want to trap a fundie, just get him to admit that baby-killing is bad at the very beginning of the argument. Then, get him to admit that baby-killing is bad under ANY circumstances. Then, point out that the Biblical God kills babies in the OT. And then, ask whether he will either:

A) Rescind his comment that baby-killing is bad under any circumstances
B) Admit that he has no internal moral compass at all and will use the Nazi Nuremburg defense of "just following orders".
C) Admit that the OT God is evil.
D) Admit that the OT is full of lies.

Of course, this doesn't work if the person refuses to acknowledge that deliberate baby-killing is always bad, but a person who would refuse to say such a thing might as well tattoo "sociopath" on his forehead, as any witnesses to this exchange would agree.

[SyntaxVorlon]

It's a bit like the age old kunundrum (spelling?); Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?

I prefer the Homer Simpson version:
"Could Jesus make a burrito SO HOT, He couldn't pick it up?"

This just after he told Flanders:
"WOW YOU DO THE BEST IMPRESSION OF FLANDERS!"

[Exonerate]

I prefer the Homer Simpson version:
"Could Jesus make a burrito SO HOT, He couldn't pick it up?"

Technically yes, because he's omnipotent and doesn't follow logic...

[Kuroneko]

I prefer the Homer Simpson version:
"Could Jesus make a burrito SO HOT, He couldn't pick it up?"

Technically yes, because he's omnipotent and doesn't follow logic...

Conclusion: there is no point in thinking rationally about God, even under the assumption that God exists.

[Jonathan]

If you watched me tangle with Jonathan Boyd, you would have observed that he stubbornly refused to address the question, and insisted on claiming that it was impossible for God to ask such a thing even though he'd done so before, because everything's supposedly changed since Christ came along (I have no problem with this popular belief, but when it's accompanied by a stubborn insistence that God never changes and the Bible is absolute truth, one must wonder what kind of self-delusion can generate such profound contradictions while refusing to acknowledge their existence).

There is no contradiction, as I explained. It isn't that God's nature or plan changed, but rather that the situation on earth had changed. Salvation was by the Law prior to his death and is now by Grace.

However, simply repeating the question and rubbing his nose in it eventually pressured him into accepting a modified version in which he is transported to 500BC, when God was still very much into baby-killing.

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.

If you want to trap a fundie, just get him to admit that baby-killing is bad at the very beginning of the argument. Then, get him to admit that baby-killing is bad under ANY circumstances. Then, point out that the Biblical God kills babies in the OT. And then, ask whether he will either:

A) Rescind his comment that baby-killing is bad under any circumstances
B) Admit that he has no internal moral compass at all and will use the Nazi Nuremburg defense of "just following orders".
C) Admit that the OT God is evil.
D) Admit that the OT is full of lies.

Of course, this doesn't work if the person refuses to acknowledge that deliberate baby-killing is always bad, but a person who would refuse to say such a thing might as well tattoo "sociopath" on his forehead, as any witnesses to this exchange would agree.

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.

[Darth Gojira]

My, my, my. Looks like Jonnie has stumbled into the trap. I suggest that my betters should unleash the flames of reason.

[Jonathan]

I prefer the Homer Simpson version:
"Could Jesus make a burrito SO HOT, He couldn't pick it up?"

Technically yes, because he's omnipotent and doesn't follow logic...

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.

[Baron Scarpia]

Since God has already commanded you to kill adulterers, homosexuals, people who wear polyesther, etc., then why aren't you out killing them instead of typing in a forum? After all, God said to do it, and he will be disposing of them in the afterlife?

If the "they will go to a better place" argument held any water, Christians would have no grounds to object to abortion, or people who live in squalid, horrible conditions killing their children out of 'mercy,' or euthanasia.

[Jonathan]

I was thinking about the "Christian School" thread and I realized that the thread provided the perfect opportunity to trap Christians with their own words.

You simply ask them "Would you kill a baby if God commanded you to?" (An ordinary baby for the record, not an evil one.)

If they answer Yes, then they admit that they are saociopaths.

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.

If they answer No, then they admit that they know better then God. If this happens you then have the perfect basis from which to attack their belief in God, since they've just admitted that they know better then God anyway.

If they say that God would never ask such a thing, then you point out that since they're not omniscient they have no way of being absolutly certain what God will or will not ask of them.

I'm sure most Christian's will try to wiggle out of dilema, but the trap seems pretty solid to me.

Thoughts people?

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.

[Darth Gojira]

Since God has already commanded you to kill adulterers, homosexuals, people who wear polyesther, etc., then why aren't you out killing them instead of typing in a forum? After all, God said to do it, and he will be disposing of them in the afterlife?

If the "they will go to a better place" argument held any water, Christians would have no grounds to object to abortion, or people who live in squalid, horrible conditions killing their children out of 'mercy,' or euthanasia.

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

[Jonathan]

My, my, my. Looks like Jonnie has stumbled into the trap. I suggest that my betters should unleash the flames of reason.

There is no trap, as I have pointed out and I have already been debating this for several days, quite reaosonably.

[Jonathan]

Since God has already commanded you to kill adulterers, homosexuals, people who wear polyesther, etc., then why aren't you out killing them instead of typing in a forum? After all, God said to do it, and he will be disposing of them in the afterlife?

Because the command to kill them was for OT times when people were under the rule of Law. The Israelites were under the command to set themselves apart a a model of God's Kingdom, with no immorality present. They failed, of course, showing us that we can't earn our way to heaven and we are now under the rule of Grace, so rather than judging and punishing sin here on earth, we are given time ot choose to repent and have our sin taken away, so that we may be judged righteous at the second Coming. Sinners are not killed because God is loving and giving us all a chance to repent.

BTW. being homosexual is not a sin. Being tempted is not wrong. It's giving into the temptation and committing homosexual acts that would be wrong. But we all sin and there is no reason to love homosexuals any less than anyone else. Just in case you're trying to accuse anyone of homphobia. I had a devil of a time convincing Marina that,as a Christian, it was my duty to love, rather than hate her.

If the "they will go to a better place" argument held any water, Christians would have no grounds to object to abortion, or people who live in squalid, horrible conditions killing their children out of 'mercy,' or euthanasia.

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.

[Peregrin Toker]

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??

[neoolong]

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