Think of the children

[suminonA]

Morally repugnant for the killer, but great for the killed.

I don’t know if it’s un-intentional or by sarcasm, but this is the logic of the evangelical religions. Your greater concern for others’ souls than your own is …“admirable”.

I mean, don't most parents want to know their kids'll go to heaven?

First, one has to believe this “going to heaven” mumbo-jumbo. Second, you have to ask the parents. Third, you have to ask the children. Who are you to make their decisions by your own logic?

A.

[suminonA]

That's because you're (anonimous) a do-goody two-shoes.

The plan is rock solid. It's fool-proof. All people have to do is snuff themselves and we'll take care of all the children. That way, all the children are saved and this planet can finally be devoid of the human parasitic virus.

If you see yourself as a virus, be my guest. But don’t include me in your “fool-proof” logic.

A.

[hive_king]

Well if anyone wanted their child to go to hell, I'd have serious doubts about their capacity to be a parent.

[suminonA]

Well if anyone wanted their child to go to hell, I'd have serious doubts about their capacity to be a parent.

Your fallacy comes from the false dichotomy that you are using.

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

We're just the messengers.

Christians want everyone to go to heaven. But most people (according to their own scriptures) will go to hell. Killing everyone before they can hear about all this business and are therefore responsible for their own soul saves them all the trouble, and they all go to heaven; in addition, no more people are around to do evil and go to hell. The people of the world don't have to like it, but they'll thank us when they wake up at the gates of St. Peter.

[hive_king]

our fallacy comes from the false dichotomy that you are using.

You may not agree with heaven/hell, but a plurality of the Earth's population does.

[suminonA]

Christians want everyone to go to heaven. But most people (according to their own scriptures) will go to hell.[...]

The moment when you replace “Christians/most people” with “everybody” is where you fail from a moral point of view. My atheistic position does not justify your including me in that group.

You may not agree with heaven/hell, but a plurality of the Earth's population does.

The same goes for you, hive_king.

A.

[hive_king]

Then obviously this thread does not concern you.

[AnthonyByakko]

Christians want everyone to go to heaven. But most people (according to their own scriptures) will go to hell.[...]

The moment when you replace “Christians/most people” with “everybody” is where you fail from a moral point of view. My atheistic position does not justify your including me in that group.

You may not agree with heaven/hell, but a plurality of the Earth's population does.

The same goes for you, hive_king.

A.

Hey, I'm just fulfilling what the Christians want. Take it up with them if you don't like me killin' ya to save you from yourself. Like I said - just a messenger.

[suminonA]

Then obviously this thread does not concern you.

It does when you're attributing moral value to plans including everybody.

A.

[hive_king]

Fine. Plan modified to only kill christian babies.

[suminonA]

Hey, I'm just fulfilling what the Christians want. Take it up with them if you don't like me killin' ya to save you from yourself. Like I said - just a messenger.

(re)read this:

[…]
Also:
*If you are not a member of a particular faith or belief system, do not set yourself up as an authority as to what that faith or belief system believes. Because you're probably wrong.
[…]

AnthonyByakko, you seem to find this funny. I suppose you recognize Taalcon’s lines. If you don’t, then you should.

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

Fine. Plan modified to only kill christian babies.

I wholeheartedly concur.

And Su, I don't think of myself as an authority on any subject. But I spent two decades in a Midwestern puritanical protestant church and school. I spent 50 hours a week for 20 years in church. I'm not an authority, but I've lived the life. Don't get your panties in a twist. (edit: usually, when you have 50,000 hours of time invested in the study of a subject, people think of you as knowing what you're talking about in that field.)

[hive_king]

Yeah, but I used to be a Christian, so its ok.

[suminonA]

And Su, I don't think of myself as an authority on any subject. But I spent two decades in a Midwestern puritanical protestant church and school. I spent 50 hours a week for 20 years in church. I'm not an authority, but I've lived the life. Don't get your panties in a twist. (edit: usually, when you have 50,000 hours of time invested in the study of a subject, people think of you as knowing what you're talking about in that field.)

I don’t think you like it when rational people take writings literally when it is obvious that they are not meant that way. I also suppose that you don’t like self-appointed “messengers”.
The “rule” that I quoted tells you that you should not put words in other people’s mouths. It’s that simple.

A.

[hive_king]

What words have we put in anyone's mouths? We've merely asked for people's opinions, and upon getting them, extrapolated them to their logical conclusion.

And what are we taking literally that was not supposed to be?

[AnthonyByakko]

I put a word in someone's mouth once. It was this awesome cake we made way back in high school, in the shape of our school team name. I took it and put it into my friend's mouth. He said it was was really good.

At any rate, I have not attributed beliefs falsely to another person/group, as you suggest. If it would be better for a man that he cut out his eye lest he look lustfully at something, or cut off his hand lest he steal with it, then why isn't it better for a man to be killed in order to go to heaven?

[suminonA]

What words have we put in anyone's mouths? We've merely asked for people's opinions, and upon getting them, extrapolated them to their logical conclusion.

And what are we taking literally that was not supposed to be?

hive_king, you must be missing a great part of this thread.
The first thing you should notice is that I reply to the authors of the posts I quote. If you feel “wrongly accused” of something, show me where that happened and we can go on. I don’t make inclusions as easily as some other people around here.

As for your questions, here is what I’d answer if they were asked by AnthonyByakko:

“What words have we put in anyone's mouths?”

Hey, I'm just fulfilling what the Christians want. Take it up with them if you don't like me killin' ya to save you from yourself. Like I said - just a messenger.

“And what are we taking literally that was not supposed to be?”

[…]
Also:
*If you are not a member of a particular faith or belief system, do not set yourself up as an authority as to what that faith or belief system believes. Because you're probably wrong.
[…]

followed by:

And Su, I don't think of myself as an authority on any subject.[…]

A.

[hive_king]

But I'm sure you can agree that since anthony (may I call you tony?) and I have experience as christians in the past, we have some authority to speak on their beliefs? Especially when heavier hitting members of this board agree with us that the unbaptized babies go to heaven.

[AnthonyByakko]

Still haven't "put words in people's mouths." We've only spoken to the desires and values wished to be attained by Christians (through our experience with them and as them) and extrapolated them into action. Actions they might not like/agree with, but action nonetheless.

[suminonA]

Still haven't "put words in people's mouths." We've only spoken to the desires and values wished to be attained by Christians (through our experience with them and as them) and extrapolated them into action. Actions they might not like/agree with, but action nonetheless.

I emphasised a "tiny" word. That's what I consider immoral: Applying your logic to others.

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

That's what I consider immoral: Applying your logic to others.

A.

So - you're a libertarian then, right?

[suminonA]

But I'm sure you can agree that since anthony (may I call you tony?) and I have experience as christians in the past, we have some authority to speak on their beliefs?

Wouldn't they be more suitable to answer that?

Especially when heavier hitting members of this board agree with us that the unbaptized babies go to heaven.

Again, it is the "logical step forward" that is faulty. Don't ask me, ask the heavier hitting members.

A.

[hive_king]

If you don't understand how it is faulty, how you are qualifed to say it is faulty. Hell, I challenge you to show us how it is faulty.

[suminonA]

That's what I consider immoral: Applying your logic to others.

A.

So - you're a libertarian then, right?

Taken out of context, I fall into many categories. The day someone makes me an "extremist" (of any kind) would be the "extreme" day

A.

[AnthonyByakko]

A religious construct that places little to no value on life, and emphasises exclusively the value of life after death has no standing to say that we, upon advocating people's deaths so that they may have eternal and happy life-after-death, are immoral.

[suminonA]

If you don't understand how it is faulty, how you are qualifed to say it is faulty. Hell, I challenge you to show us how it is faulty.

I take the challenge:

Your first fault was to extrapolate the Christian belief to everybody. You took that back.
Second, you extrapolate your interpretations on other Christians.

I won't go any further, it is the same fallacy the "Holy Inquisition" made.

A.

PS: I don't even go to the "detail" that you're not a Christian anymore - by your own claim - probably because your interpretations didn't coincide with the "body of the Church".

[suminonA]

A religious construct that places little to no value on life, and emphasises exclusively the value of life after death has no standing to say that we, upon advocating people's deaths so that they may have eternal and happy life-after-death, are immoral.

That's a point I have no saying in. Why do you think there are so many non Christians in this world?

And I'd probably take "immoral" back, and leave it to "morally repugnant". It is my taste that I'm talking about after all.


A.

[AnthonyByakko]

A religious construct that places little to no value on life, and emphasises exclusively the value of life after death has no standing to say that we, upon advocating people's deaths so that they may have eternal and happy life-after-death, are immoral.

That's a point I have no saying in. Why do you think there are so many non Christians in this world?

And I'd probably take "immoral" back, and leave it to "morally repugnant". It is my taste that I'm talking about after all.


A.

There ya go. I have no problem being morally repugnant to your individual tastes.

[suminonA]

There ya go. I have no problem being morally repugnant to your individual tastes.

A.

[Slim]

So then what does happen, Slim, to those who die before 8?

Sorry if I didn't make it clear in my post. They are all saved by the grace of Christ. Read Moroni 8, I didn't wan't to quote the whole chapter, so that's probably where confusion came in. How about a small selection?

"little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin"
"teach repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin"
"And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism."
"little achildren are alive in Christ"
"For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism."

[lyons24000]

Why can we not just stay on topic?

The Bible says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23, Holman Christian Standard Bible) When you compile a debt and you pay that debt off, you are not punished for compiling that debt. You're a free person from then on.

That is how sin works. Sin is a debt. When you die, you pay that debt off. You are not punished for compiling that debt, which would be the equivalent of going to hell. Death is your punishment. Nothing else because we know that when you are dead you are "are conscious of nothing at all."-Ecclesiastes 9:5 (New World Translation)

This includes babies. Babies do not go to hell when they die and neither do adults. The Bible teaches something very different then what the churches of Christendom teach.-2 Timothy 4:3,4

[hive_king]

I find the word "christendom" as you use it offensive, as it presupposes that they are not "true" christianity.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but your church, lyons, teaches that everyone who dies before Armageddon will be risen again and given another chance since they've died and payed their wages, but those still alive and that are "wicked" will be the ones who aren't reborn in paradise, right?

[lyons24000]

I don't really care how you find my usage of the word "Christendom", Nick.

And the answers to your post are "no" and "yes".

Not everyone who dies before Armageddon will be resurrected. Anyone killed by Jehovah has no chance of being resurrected because that was divine judgement. The people who died in Noah's Flood will not be resurrected and the people in Sodom and Gommorah will not be resurrected because Jehovah killed them because of divine judgement. Those people went to Gehenna. And others who died because of other causes are not guaranteed a resurrection either. For example, people who blaspheme against the holy spirit, which would be working against, cursing, or speaking against the holy spirit directly are guilty of the unforgivable sin.-Mark 3:29

Now, there are people who will be resurrected who were not followers of Jehovah just like the Scriptures signify. (John 5:28,29; Acts 24:15)

I do not have the authority to say who will be resurrected and who will not be resurrected but I can say that those who go to Gehenna will not be resurrected and those who went to sheol/hades will be.

[Eaquae Legit]

Two things that haven't been taken into consideration in this altruistic plot to off humanity in the name of salvation:

1. Just as one can't say a person is going to hell, neither can one say they aren't. If someone has rejected God, killing them removes all chance that they might change their mind.

2. No human has the authority to take another's life. Life is created by God, and it is good. Only God has the right to decide when (or if) someone should die.

I'm sure there's more I could say, I'm sure, and say it all better, but it's been two days and I've only just now stopped laughing at the ham-handed caricatures in this thread.