Tags
Every once in a while I exercise my right to post something that most people find utterly repulsive. This is one of those posts.
Most Christians believe in a God that judges people for their sins and sends them to eternal heaven or hell based on his judgment. Let me show you how it logically follows from those beliefs, that we should kill all newborns.
To the Christian I ask, do you believe that a newborn goes to heaven if he or she dies? If not, then you cannot claim your God to be a benevolent God. What did a newborn ever do to deserve eternal hellfire?
I’m going to assume that you believe newborns go to heaven if they die. Here is the problem with that belief: Since living life beyond the newborn stage increases the chance that a person sins, thereby reducing the chance that he or she will get into heaven, shouldn’t you take it upon yourself to kill all newborns to ensure their eternal happiness? Sure you would go to hell for your troubles but wouldn’t it be the right thing to do? Wouldn’t it be better for one person to go to hell for killing thousands of babies than for half of those babies to grow up as sinners and go to hell when they die?
The beliefs that; 1) God is benevolent, 2) God is more likely to send grown people to hell than babies, and 3) One shouldn’t kill babies, is not a coherent set of beliefs. At least one of these beliefs must be wrong. If you disagree, please tell me where my reasoning is faulty.
Your questions reveal the inconsistencies of what is believed as Biblical truth. Along with the question: “Since living life beyond the newborn stage increases the chance that a person sins, thereby reducing the chance that he or she will get into heaven”, one could query that “Since God does not want anyone to perish, and since sinning after salvation could send someone to hell, and since heaven is a much better place to be than here on earth, then why doesn’t God take people to heaven as soon as they accept salvation through Jesus, thus assuring that the devil can not reduce one’s chances of getting into heaven? Thus again concepts of a parochial salvation seem inconsistent with a benevolent God who doesn’t want any to perish yet sends unbelievers to an eternity of hell. Don’t these inconsistencies really express how religion is really a human invention?
You’re operating under a false premise, Christianity orthodoxy denies that sinning after salvation could send someone to hell – in fact Christianity doesn’t even posit that people stop sinning after salvation, which actually means you have two false premises.
So anyone that accepts Jesus is guaranteed to go to heaven no matter how many crimes/sins he or she commits afterwards? What if someone becomes an atheist after being “saved”? Would such blasphemy go unpunished?
Again, you’re operating under a false premise, and offering a loaded question. Your question presupposes that someone can become an atheist after salvation, which Christianity would deny.
I find it ironic that you say that to a Christian that has become an atheist.
By the way, not all of Christianity believes that salvation guarantees a ticket into heaven.
Hence why I said Christianity orthodoxy, which adheres to “once saved always saved” in Arminian circles, or “perseverance of the saints” in Calvinistic ones.
Christianity would not deny that many may appear to accept the faith, and then fall away – the key word would be appear.
So years ago when I believed and accepted Jesus Christ, was I only doing it for appearances or had I deluded myself into thinking that I had accepted Christ?
Well that depends entirely on what you believed Christianity was.
And what you have is the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, tweaked a bit to fit your religion. If you claim that we were never christians to begin with even though many of us displayed all the ‘fruits’ of having been ‘born again’, than you need to change your pitch when you are addressing a potential convert.
What the pitch is is that one can be saved and KNOW that you have eternal life, and it be true.
I had this experience and knowledge for 20 years, and was totally convinced that I was saved and going to heaven.
I now realize that it’s all a sham, but I couldn’t have been convinced of that either back then.
And here you come saying that I was actually never saved or a christian, so your salvation pitch needs to include that the potential convert may do, feel, and believe all of the required things…but somehow God doesn’t do his part.
And you cannot tell the difference between being saved and only THINKING you are saved.
Granted I don’t think I was saved then, anymore than you are saved now. Its a mind game.
But if I wasn’t a ‘true believer’ than there is no such thing.
What is a Christian, in your definition (so that I know I’m not equivocating)?
The fallacy mentioned doesn’t reference anything outside of the case in point, which I do, as I would reference Scripture. Granted, if you want to accuse me of begging the question with regards to Scripture, then that’s fine; you must presuppose your ultimate authority/first principle – whatever it is, reason included, otherwise it’s not ultimate/first – and with Scripture being mine, it must be presupposed.
This is precisely why it puzzles me that christians are usually rabidly anti-abortion. As I told my sister, if christianity would happen to be true I would FAR rather have been aborted at birth than grow up only to be kindling for God’s torture chamber.
Good post, and very easily points out yet another absurdity in the christian belief system.
I’ve put this to several bible thumping christians that I know and all they do is stutter and quote some obscure bible verse. (In all fairness, all bible verses are obscure to me.)
Yeah, my sis said that the end doesn’t justify the means. Which makes no sense either, when you think that a fetus goes from having virtually no self-awareness, or pain and suffering straight to a paradise of unimaginable proportions,
Vs. being born in a crazy world of pain and also joy, in all likelihood dying and spending the next few trillions eons sizzling. And that is just getting started on the grill.
Yep, if christianity is true the ends would justify any means possible to get your kid to heaven. Killing it at birth would be the kindest action a parent could do.
Fortunately its a fairy tale, and a dying one at that.
You’re imposing a utilitarian system upon a Christian one, of course it’s going to be inconsistent. In terms of logic, you’ve committed a logical fallacy known as a complex or loaded question. That is to say, since your question presupposes utilitarianism as a proper ethic – which Christianity denies – the question is skewed from the start.
It is not a loaded question if the assumptions are justified. My assumption that it is better that one person suffers eternal hellfire than for thousands of people to suffer eternal hellfire, is a utilitarian assumption. It does not presuppose the properness of utilitarianism as a system of ethics.
If your question does not presuppose the properness of utilitarianism, then your entire argument can be dismissed just by pointing out that utilitarianism isn’t a legitimate ethic regardless of what it’s applied to, which in this case is Christianity. Thus, Christians shouldn’t be killing babies because only a utilitarian viewpoint would argue that they should, and utilitarianism is wrong.
If you question does presuppose the properness of utilitarianism (which I would argue it does, since the only way you can ask the question you have is if you presuppose it’s properness), then your argument can be dismissed on the grounds that you’re operating on a false premise. So either way, your argument is invalid.
Please keep the comments on subject.You are arguing against a straw man. My assumption is utilitarian in nature but that doesn’t justify bringing the whole system of utilitarianism into the argument. Since you’re coming from a Christian point of view, I could ask you to prove the existence of God but I don’t. It’s just not relevant to the immediate subject at hand anymore than utilitarianism is.
If your assumption is utilitarian in nature, and if utilitarianism as a system is wrong, then your assumption is also wrong. That’s why it’s relevant, because if the system is wrong then so is the assumption which employs it.
But still, you’re not arguing that utilitarianism is right, so we agree there. What you’re arguing is that if utilitarianism were right, and if we apply it to infant salvation, then it would follow that we should kill babies. The thrust of the argment is in the repulsion we should obviously feel at the thought of killing babies, which therefore attempts to conclude that Christianity is wrong. The problem is that it doesn’t prove Christianity wrong because it doesn’t even address Christianity, it simply uses an example from Christianity to argue against a utilitarian ethic. It doesn’t prove Christianity wrong, it proves utilitarianism wrong, which has nothing to do with Christianity.
You can argue against utilitarianism all day long and you won’t hear a peep from the Christians, because we disagree with it too.
Or, I guess, it might just be simpler to say that your fallacy is one of ‘false premise’, where the false premise is the supposition that utilitarian ethics are legitimate.
My assumption that it is better for one person to suffer eternal hellfire than for thousands of persons to suffer eternal hellfire, might be utilitarian but what is your point? I don’t think Christians would disagree with this assumption, do you?
The value judgement of “better” requires one to work within the utilitarian ethic, which the Christian would not view as legitimate. Therefore it’s a loaded question.
In other words… it is not better that one person sacrifices himself for the salvation of all the others. Ironic, don’t you think, given the whole Jesus on the cross for you thing?
Again, ‘better’ – as defined by utilitarianism – doesn’t factor into it. As long as you approach the issue from that angle you’re not discussing Christianity and therefore fail to make an argument against it.
Insofar as your blog post is arguing against something, it is arguing against utilitarianism, not against Christianity. Take the utilitarianism out of your original post and you’re left with nothing to say.
X-A, To my thinking, it’s the same premise of Jehovah’s Witnesses who claim only 144,000 people are going to be allowed into heaven, yet spend much of their lives trying to get others to join their church. How does that make any sense? The more converts the better your chances, but what happens when one of your converts converts more people than you?
(Sometimes you make my brain hurt… I never do as much thinking about this stuff as when you post and people like J Dahl comment.)
Hello, xamishatheist, We have centuries of religious orthodox over-writings. The premise, God is benevolent, is contradicted by the doctrine of eternal hell. Since 1875 scholars have been studying the etymology of the word eternal and it has been proven to mean, age or aion, in the original Greek & Hebrew Bible manuscripts (as well in ancient Greek classical literature contemporary with the first New Testaments). I have been abit of an isolated person, (I do like Wifi coffee places however) who has spent 45 years reading & studying in our public libraries & university with a special library card. I spent 300 hours reading the scholars who also corrected the meanings of the hell, hades & Gehenna. In many cases hell means, “unseen state” or grave, prison. see http://www.tentmaker.org ScholarsCorner. Also http://www.hopebeyondhell.net “In Christ all shall be made alive.” 1 Cor. 15:22 You seem like an honest seeker of knowledge & I like the respectful tone of your postings…thank you. ct101
I have spent some time studying these things as well, though not to the extent that you have. I think a lot of the contradictions and nonsensical things in Christianity are the result of popular misinterpretations of the ancient texts.
First of all, since you’re not going to post your name I’m going to give you one so I feel like I’m writing to a human being. Let’s see, how about Luke?
Luke, you love to debate. And you are a seeker. Wonderful traits to have so long as it’s not taken to the point of annoyance.
I read most of the comments and banter. I found it boring, much like, “Let’s see who can be the wittiest.” I wonder if your remarks/questions are sincere or if you just want to one-up someone. If you are sincere I would like to have an e-mail “conversation” with you. I think you are.
Argumentation is a process whereby knowledge is gained and/or exchanged through reasoning and reasoned debate. I am sorry that you mistook it for boring banter and attempts at wittiness. My email address is xamishatheistATgmailDOTcom if you wish to email me.
Greetings X! It’s been a while since I last checked in, and seeing the upcoming season of Breaking Amish promos reminded me of you so I decided to pop by to see if anything new and interesting had been posted. My brain has been getting a little fuzzy without the stimulating debates among your posters. Unfortunately, all I found was (IMHO) a rather rude comment left by Fran Shultis proclaiming all of us boring. How dare she! I am one of the least boring people I know. The burning question is… did she send you an e-mail or was she merely blowing smoke up your skirt to get a response? And why wouldn’t she engage here so we could all join in? I have suspicions about anyone who doesn’t like a little witty repartee served with their discourse.
Hope you’re doing well.
Dear, xamish. I would like to answer your question. You have a good arguement, but please let me explain what I have learner through my relationship with God. From the moment we are born, we are born sinners. In fact that is exactly why Jesus payed the price for our sins. This is what I have come to know as provenient “Grace” kind of like a gift that you receive. A gift of everlasting life. This is a gift we ALL have received. Jesus died to give us eternal life. In order for us to be with God forever (heaven) all we truly have to do is except this gift. I excepted Jesus as my savor when I was 11 years old and could understand. As a baby we aren’t able to except or understand his gift. We are innocent. As far as sin…if you truly except Jesus’s gift of everlasting life, and how he suffered for you, he will “live inside” you. In your heart. You will want to do what is right. You will automatically try not to sin. Not because someone tells you not to, not because you are afraid of going to hell, not because you want to look good around other people. Because you a Love Him. As he Loves You <3
There is only One unforgivable sin, not excepting his gift.
If you want more information, or would like to speak with me about this more feel free to contact me. Please don't give up on God because of things you have gone through in the past. He loves you, and I would love to help you experience a "relationship" with him. A LOVING one. Heidi W Middletown Pa
Hi Heidi and thanks for your comment! There are several things I want to respond to.
1) I didn’t become an atheist because of anything I have “gone through in the past”. I became an atheist because I thought long and hard about the existence of God.
2) In my heart, I also want to do what is right. I do not need God, Jesus, or religion to be a moral person.
3) You say that we are born sinners but later you say babies are innocent. Which is it? It seems like a contradiction to me.
Hello xamish, babies are innocent, as are anyone unable to understand, or unaware of the gift that they have received. You see Jesus already saved us….we cannot ‘save’ ourselves or get other people “saved” they already have been given that gift they just need to except it. Look at it kind of like this. If I give you a gift, you can throw it away, not open it, not experience all it has to offer. Some may decide not to except it because they have had bad experiences with other gifts and maybe were disappointed, others may hate the person giving it to them, others may open it use it for their pleasure and throw it to the side when they get tired of it. Others may think its fake, and decide they dont want it. Others may not even realize they got a gift, and would even be able to open it. Babies,the very young, and other folks who are unable to understand (mentally disabled), the gift they have received are innocent. How can someone who has no understanding of receiving a gift be guilty of not opening it? Your question was how can we be born sinners, but yet babies are innocent? The answer is simple Sins are NOT what makes us guilty of going to heaven or Hell. Again that’s why Jesus paid the price for us. If that was the case No one would be going to heaven because we could never be free of sin. What keeps us from”heaven” (with) God, and sends us to “Hell” (without) God (seperated from him) is not excepting the gift of eternal life with him. I even dare to push this arguement in saying that even someone who is 30 years old who hasn’t heard about Jesus and their gift is also innocent like a baby. I on the other hand…If I turn from this truth knowing what has been given to me and I throw it away and don’t use it, then I will be in Hell here on earth and when I die because I will be without God. I know you feel God does not exist, but he exists in me.
Heidi, you have once again painted yourself into yet another dilemma. If those ‘unable to understand’ or a 30 year old who hasn’t heard are ‘innocent like a baby’ then actually TELLING them the ‘good news’ would be a horrible injustice, since they then would be able to be sent to hell. Missionaries would be doing a criminal act.
Being born mentally deficient would be far better than being born healthy minded, with hell to pay for not believing what is absurd on it’s face.
Face it, logic is not on your side.
Good point Matt, I see how that makes sense “logically” why would I tell someone about God, and possibility help send them to hell? Personally I want for them to experience the love I have experienced, if they choose to not except it that’s their choice. If you give someone a knife they can use it for cutting themselves loose from ties or they can stab themselves with it and bleed to death. Did you commit a “criminal act” because you gave them the knife to set them free of their ties, and They choose to stab theirselves instead? And if we really want to speak logically look up the defenition of the word “exist”. God “exist”. Please don’t find my option disrespectful. I do see your logic and respect your beliefs. In fact I grow up much like you in a “fundamental” church who basically made me feel like I could do nothing right and God was right there ready to lash me! Everything from your hair length to your dress length was judged. It was such a radical way of looking at God and the Bible. A way that Only benefited the people making the rules. But I can truly tell you that when you “truely” meet God you will want others to meet him too.
“Personally I want for them to experience the love I have experienced”
A very strange love this is. Accept it or go to the special torture chamber reserved for those who DON’T accept the ‘love’.
No thanks, Heidi. I love my kids completely. Never would I even begin to entertain the thought of inflicting gruesome pain on them for not returning the favor . Love such as this is tyrannical , vindictive and diabolical. I want no part or parcel of it and neither should you.
You are serving a monster of epic proportions. Thankfully he exists only in your mind.
Wow, Matt I’m so sorry you haven’t experienced the unconditional love I have felt. Sounds like you are already in that torture chamber. We all have free will to choose who we serve. I respect your position. The God I know isn’t a monster, unfortunately, your experiences in life lead you to believe different. I hope someday you will experience what I have.
” I’m so sorry you haven’t experienced the unconditional love I have felt. ”
I HAVE experienced unconditional love…from my kids, my wife , and my family, and many friends. I’m completely content and happy.
The difference is that if for some reason my family would not love me, or would for whatever reason even DISOWN me, I wouldn’t dream of punishing them in any way for that. Moral people with a conscience don’t do that. Evil dictators do.
Your God would, and even designed a place specifically for that purpose(according to your religion) . That doesn’t even begin to qualify as love, and isn’t even on the same dictionary page as unconditional love.
On another note, a kid dies of starvation every 3 seconds around the world. This doesn’t even mention the millions who are being beaten, molested and tortured RIGHT NOW!
If I could stop it…I would. That’s another difference between me and your God.
So at the moment I have two major things that I am light years better than your God , so I’m not inclined to stoop so low as to revere your deity.
He sucks. Really really bad. Fortunately he’s imaginary.
Matt, it seems to me that another support of your point of human unconditional love is that unconditional love is not limited to Christian practice. Other religions also can express unconditional love in their traditions. Even atheist can express unconditional love, which your comments are an example of it. Thus one does not need a concept of deity to practice agape love, altruism, unconditional love. Some animals have even demonstrated loyalty and love, even unconditional love; and of course do so without a ‘concept of’ or ‘belief in’ a deity. The common denominator in all religions and expressions of love could be our dopamine neurotransmitters in our brain as suggested by Fred Previc, a neuroscientist, along with others. Dopamine is the “feel good” drug which is naturally in human bodies and some animal bodies and everyone wants to feel good. Dopamine is involved in romance, love, altruism, religious experiences, enjoyable foods, sexuality, substance abuse, and really all kinds of addictions, (that is a very simplistic description of dopamine and scientifically it is much more involved than just those areas). Thus those spiritual experiences and spiritual mountain-top emotions perhaps are really just our dopamine activators, a dopamine high (a religious addiction) and humans have termed those visions, voices, out-of-body experiences, trances, and near death experiences and guardian angel experiences as ‘spirituality’, ‘God contacts’, or the ‘Holy Spirit of God’.