wildernesse

I’m a Christian who believes that God wouldn’t punish children with hell if they died before being able to understand salvation for themselves. So why shouldn’t we kill our children so that they can be happy in heaven?

Hmmm. The best answer to this is that, as biological creatures, our drive is for our genes to be passed on—if we kill our children we deny that basic urge. That’s why it’s stupid. Why it’s theologically wrong, I don’t know if there is a reason for not doing this—other than it’s against our humanity. But you could say that you aren’t showing love for those children you kill—greater love would be to allow them to grow and make their own decisions about their beliefs and not forcing yours onto them. Which is what killing them and “making” them go to heaven would be.

And, I do believe that the killer would be forgiven, if there were true repentance and a call for mercy. All sins being equal to separate you from God and what not—it doesn’t matter the sin. But true repentance would involve full recognition of your sin and its consequences—which I think would be a terrible thing for a child murderer to understand. I also suspect that many cold-blooded murderers (and someone who goes around killing children so they’ll be in heaven would be one) may not be able to comprehend their crime—or why would they commit it in the first place?

Of course, I think that all things are possible with God—and that I could be wrong about all of the things I’ve said above. Just my two cents and my thoughts for this morning.

I don’t think that Andrea Yates killed her children because she thought they would go to heaven—I think she killed her children because she was suffering from a terrible mental illness.

--tibac

RufusAtticus

Before someone says it:

Her mental illness wasn't Christianity nor religion.

abe smith

....Just make DAMN sure those children you're going to murder have been BAPTISED using the correct gestures & terms! If you're NOT sure whether they have been or not, you'd better baptise them "conditionally" before you kill them ; BECAUSE nobody seems to have decided whether The CHEUCH still believes/teaches that unbaptised infants go to LIMBO for evah! and NEVER make it into Hehvun. Maybe you could ask your local *RC* Bishop to tell you; or write to Joe Cardinal Rot-singer: he must know if anyone does. Note that not too many decades ago, if a kid was in the process of being-born and its death before emergence seemed imminent/likely, some fool priest wd be there dodging in & out of the non-sterile theater (get rid of a lotta Mothers that way, w/ "puerperal fever") to squirt some holy water up into the Woman's birth-canal, to baptise the kid. Think of it! (of course, HOLY water doesn't HAVE any germs in it.)

Amos

Abe, if you ask the question we have to provide the answer which goes like this.

If heaven is only for Catholics baptism is a theological necessity and so is limbo for the non-baptised.

Catholic Baptism is necessary because our John the Baptist is born in the netherworld of our subconscious mind to prepare the way for the conversion to take place in the conscious mind.
That is why Jesus and John were bosom budies in Jn.19:26 when Jesus said to his mother "There is your son." So the the birth of John transforms melancholia into involutional melancholia (see Albrecht Dhurer's woodcuts if you can't read the bible).

Limbo is when a person dies and has only been exposed to its own lymbic system for orientation.

Two things to be noted here. Such a person has never been defiled by protestant perversion of the Truth but has also never received benefits from the Communion of the Saints.

Understand here that we begin our journey of life at the Alpha and return to heaven in the Omega. Whatever we create in between will be added to our richess in heaven. This makes limbo a return to the Alpha without Saintly additions or protestant perversion and thus the same as the Alpha.

Abe, for a man of years your ignorance of reality is astonishing and I can't seem to help wonder how it must feel to grow older but not wiser.

[ September 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

This line is crap from modern anthropologist.

Our basic drive is sex or we would not need birth control but would just quit having sex. The chance of getting pregnant is most often undesired and therefore not basic. This is true also with animals where the males will copulate if they get a chance and until they die in some species.

K

Wildernesse:

Be careful. I think you came awfully close to saying that our own biological morality trumps that of God. Why else would passing on our chromosomes be more important than making absolutely sure that our children didn't suffer unspeakable torment for all eternity?

Plus, the killer could always spare her/his kids to pass on the chromosomes while sending as many others as possible to God.

MadMordigan

Plus, the killer could always spare her/his kids to pass on the chromosomes while sending as many others as possible to God.

Ya, but one's own kids are just so much more accessible. You'd go broke buying lolliepops for all the kids in some neighbourhoods.

The Other Michael

Not so, for if you are quick enough you could get a lot of mileage out of a single lolly.

cheers,
Michael

K

Plus, you should be able to write off the cost as a religios donation. Maybe you could even collect door to door for killin' cash.

wildernesse

I don't think that God is moral, as I think that morality is a human construct that is part of our group's survival. I think that God is holy and cares about our sin separating us from him--but what is sin is not necessarily moral and what is immoral is not necessarily sin. Worshipping false gods may be sin, but it's not immoral. Who gets to decide what is sin? Well, God. It's not an argument, just what I believe.

Amos--
Everytime we have sex a child is not produced. The drive for sex is our instinct to pass on our genes--if we could be assured that our genes in 1 child would survive from here to eternity, then we wouldn't have much use for a sex drive. We only have a sex drive so that we're more likely to pass on our genes. Humans are nice little biological specimens, but I think that we'd know more about them if we weren't ones ourselves.

Also, if everyone went about sparing their kids and killing other people's then we'd just have a society that--well, it'd end up like today's. We want our children to be safe and loved the most, and don't give a real hoot about those outside our group--whether we define our group as our own family, extended family, community, state, nation, race, etc. When you get to the point that humanity is your group, then there's not much reason to go around killing anyone's children. Where is God in this?

Probably where the individual allows Him to be.

--tibac