NationStates Jolt Archive

I find it strange that the Christians in this country hate abortion so. And the "liberal left" should embrace it. Logically it should be reversed let me explain.

Christians ( at least most ) think that when a child dies they automatically go to heaven. Heaven eternal paradise. Children being aborted are being given a one way ticket to paradise for eternity. It gaurentees them eternity with God.
How can eternity with God be a bad thing? How hypocritical to expect those children to grow up and have to make the choice to serve God. This gives those children all eternity to where neither moth nor rust shall bother them.

So are the christians then going to say that freedom out weighs all eternity with God? I thought getting to heaven is the ultimate goal?

Yes by logical standards christians should approve and indorse abortion?

Now for the "liberal left" They stand up for all that is weak and cannot defend itself animals are under horrid oppression from humans and must be freed. How much more innocent is an infant in the womb? There should be public outcry from the compassionate side.

Hypocrisy such a wonderful human attribute.

Christian belief that babies must be baptised to get into heaven. Well, RC belief anyway.

And I consider a liberal viewpoint to be one in favour of equal rights and opportunities for all.

I'm sure you've seen at least one of the hundreds of discussions here about whether embryos can be consider children / human.

Christian belief that babies must be baptised to get into heaven. Well, RC belief anyway.

And I consider a liberal viewpoint to be one in favour of equal rights and opportunities for all.

I'm sure you've seen at least one of the hundreds of discussions here about whether embryos can be consider children / human.


RC = Roman Catholic? Then they prescribe that all aborted children are going to hell? Because someone did not sprinkle them with water? God is going to cast a child into eternal hell for not getting water splashed on them?

I find that incredibly repulsive and not sure that Catholics would believe that and if they do they need to find a new religon IMO of course.

And I consider a liberal viewpoint to be one in favour of equal rights and opportunities for all.

Except the unborn?

Christian belief that babies must be baptised to get into heaven. Well, RC belief anyway.

And I consider a liberal viewpoint to be one in favour of equal rights and opportunities for all.

I'm sure you've seen at least one of the hundreds of discussions here about whether embryos can be consider children / human.
no, last i checked if babies are below a certain age they go to heaven if they die


Except the unborn?
yes, because if they are born we cant eat them :rolleyes:

Except the unborn?

"Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great..."

:p

I support first-term abortions.

I also eat meat, buy from companies that most likely use sweatshops etc etc etc.

Everyone draws a line in their beliefs somewhere. Mine comes at 12 weeks pregnancy and excessive cruelty (humans and the rest of the animal kingdom respectively).

I find it strange that the Christians in this country hate abortion so. And the "liberal left" should embrace it. Logically it should be reversed let me explain.

Christians ( at least most ) think that when a child dies they automatically go to heaven. Heaven eternal paradise. Children being aborted are being given a one way ticket to paradise for eternity. It gaurentees them eternity with God.
How can eternity with God be a bad thing? How hypocritical to expect those children to grow up and have to make the choice to serve God. This gives those children all eternity to where neither moth nor rust shall bother them.

So are the christians then going to say that freedom out weighs all eternity with God? I thought getting to heaven is the ultimate goal?

Yes by logical standards christians should approve and indorse abortion?

Now for the "liberal left" They stand up for all that is weak and cannot defend itself animals are under horrid oppression from humans and must be freed. How much more innocent is an infant in the womb? There should be public outcry from the compassionate side.

Hypocrisy such a wonderful human attribute.

this is an extension of a thought i had while talking with a Christian friend:

if all children below a certain age would go straight to Heaven if they died (since they are too young to knowingly sin, and thus a loving and just God wouldn't send them to Hell) then how come Christian children ever survive to adulthood? if i had a kid, and i knew that i could send him to a paradise where he would live in perfect happiness for all eternity, i would send him there without a second thought! even if it meant i would be damned to Hell for murder, i would willingly give my life and my soul to guarantee a place in paradise for my child...heck, i would do that for my little brother, my godson, and my nephew, too. i would do it for total strangers! if i had the power to ensure that a child would never suffer, never want, never hurt, and would be happy and safe forever, i would be more than willing to give up my chance at happiness.

so how come parents who believe in this vision of Heaven don't kill their babies at birth? is it selfishness, that they want to have a child so they can love it and experience its life? is it fear of Hell for themselves, since they would be damned for murder?

RC = Roman Catholic? Then they prescribe that all aborted children are going to hell? Because someone did not sprinkle them with water? God is going to cast a child into eternal hell for not getting water splashed on them?

I find that incredibly repulsive and not sure that Catholics would believe that and if they do they need to find a new religon IMO of course. We got rid of that belief.

Anyway, your view is a bit Simon de Montfort like - kill them all, and let God take his own.

this is an extension of a thought i had while talking with a Christian friend:

if all children below a certain age would go straight to Heaven if they died (since they are too young to knowingly sin, and thus a loving and just God wouldn't send them to Hell) then how come Christian children ever survive to adulthood? if i had a kid, and i knew that i could send him to a paradise where he would live in perfect happiness for all eternity, i would send him there without a second thought! even if it meant i would be damned to Hell for murder, i would willingly give my life and my soul to guarantee a place in paradise for my child...heck, i would do that for my little brother, my godson, and my nephew, too. i would do it for total strangers! if i had the power to ensure that a child would never suffer, never want, never hurt, and would be happy and safe forever, i would be more than willing to give up my chance at happiness.

so how come parents who believe in this vision of Heaven don't kill their babies at birth? is it selfishness, that they want to have a child so they can love it and experience its life? is it fear of Hell for themselves, since they would be damned for murder?

Reason, IMO the greatest of God's gifts. Not the bible which produces illogical dilemmas such as these. Nice post I appreciate it.

Fetus's aren't people, they don't know of their existence, so they don't exist. If you don't exist in life, I don't think you can exist in the afterlife.

no, last i checked if babies are below a certain age they go to heaven if they die

I thought they go to Limbo with other unbaptized souls, where they stay forever. At least, that's it according to Dante.

We got rid of that belief.

Anyway, your view is a bit Simon de Montfort like - kill them all, and let God take his own.


I am not following I wish to kill no one and do not endorse the killing of anyone???

Reason, IMO the greatest of God's gifts. Not the bible which produces illogical dilemmas such as these. Nice post I appreciate it.
nobody has ever been able to resolve that issue for me, either. the only way people get around it is to throw out one of the premises, but given those premises they can't seem to figure a way to avoid loving infanticide. so i guess that's the new challenge for General Forum:

assume, for the sake of this argument, that there is a God who is all-loving and all-good. assume that there is a Heaven, which is defined as a perfect afterlife where all are blissfully happy for the rest of eternity, and assume that entrance into heaven is presided over by God. assume that all children below a certain age are guaranteed to go to this Heaven if they should die, because the only thing that gets you excluded from Heaven is being an unrepentant sinner (or rejecting God) and these young children are not mentally capable of sinning or of making any sort of decision about God-belief.

given these assumptions, construct a rational explanation of why a parent would NOT kill his/her child before the child passed the age cutoff.

It's because Christians think abortion is murder and murder is a sin in the Bible.

Liberals and libertarians are in favour of legalising abortion because it offers freedom of choice. They tend to follow science rather than religion and thus believe that a foetus is not alive and thus abortion is not murder.

yeah
shouldnt catholic priests keep guns under their cassocks so that as soon as a person completes penance he can shoot them in the head and send them to heaven?

remember how jesus went around killing people who believed in him? that was so religious of him!

*smack*

the ends do not justify the means

nobody has ever been able to resolve that issue for me, either. the only way people get around it is to throw out one of the premises, but given those premises they can't seem to figure a way to avoid loving infanticide. so i guess that's the new challenge for General Forum:

assume, for the sake of this argument, that there is a God who is all-loving and all-good. assume that there is a Heaven, which is defined as a perfect afterlife where all are blissfully happy for the rest of eternity, and assume that entrance into heaven is presided over by God. assume that all children below a certain age are guaranteed to go to this Heaven if they should die, because the only thing that gets you excluded from Heaven is being an unrepentant sinner (or rejecting God) and these young children are not mentally capable of sinning or of making any sort of decision about God-belief.

given these assumptions, construct a rational explanation of why a parent would NOT kill his/her child before the child passed the age cutoff.

Once again very thought invoking. I would even venture to say that given this criteria and it being true you would be immoral to not send your child to this paradise.

I think that christians are caught in a moral dilemma. Even if murder is a sin are not all sins forgiven if repented of? So then you could sin and send your child to a wonderful paradise for all eternity and still be forgiven. I simply cannot see a christian giving a good rationalization of this dilemma.

yeah
shouldnt catholic priests keep guns under their cassocks so that as soon as a person completes penance he can shoot them in the head and send them to heaven?

remember how jesus went around killing people who believed in him? that was so religious of him!

*smack*

the ends do not justify the means
nobody is saying that the sin would be justified according to Christian doctrine. i am not at all suggesting that the person who murders their infant should be allowed into Heaven, since Christian doctrine specifies that murder is a sin and a Hell-worthy offense. what i am saying is that the CHILD still would get into Heaven, based on the premises of the argument, so i would totally take that bargain if i were a parent...even if my act damned me for eternity, i would be more than willing to sell my soul if it meant eternity in safety and happiness for my child.

yeah
shouldnt catholic priests keep guns under their cassocks so that as soon as a person completes penance he can shoot them in the head and send them to heaven?

that is also a very good question. the only reason i could give would be that the priest would then be a murderer and would be somehow unqualified to lead other people to God (i'm assuming that being a serial killer disqualifies one from the priesthood)...the priest could say that they will do more good for the world by continuing to try to save souls by conventional methods than by guaranteeing places in heaven for the few victims they could shoot before being caught.

however, for a parent the issue of love comes into the picture. i know that if i ever had a child i would put that child ahead of everything else in the world, no matter what, and ensuring its welfare would have to be the first purpose of my life.


remember how jesus went around killing people who believed in him? that was so religious of him!

*smack*

jesus also didn't have religious discussions over the internet, nor did he have a radio show to try to get God's word out to the masses. last i checked, modern Christianity was not limiting its good works to only the things that Jesus did.


the ends do not justify the means
i'm not claiming they do.

Your argument dosen'y work. Its like saying that we can kill anyone because they would go to heaven.

however, for a parent the issue of love comes into the picture. i know that if i ever had a child i would put that child ahead of everything else in the world, no matter what, and ensuring its welfare would have to be the first purpose of my life.

You don't need religion to make this argument. If a child lives long enough to understand the world around it, the child will undergo hardships. Why doesn't any moral parent just murder the infant at birth?

yeah
shouldnt catholic priests keep guns under their cassocks so that as soon as a person completes penance he can shoot them in the head and send them to heaven?

remember how jesus went around killing people who believed in him? that was so religious of him!

*smack*

the ends do not justify the means

The problem with this is if you allow your child to get to adulthood they may not choose to follow God and therefore go to heaven.

You are being kind and just by eliminating that option.

which is of greater importance our physical lives which are but a blink of an eye or all eternity in glorious heaven?

The ends do not justify the means?

The end is eternity in glorious heaven forever and ever and ever.

the means is just one sin that can be forgiven c'mon what do you mean the ends do not justify the means??

You don't need religion to make this argument. If a child lives long enough to understand the world around it, the child will undergo hardships. Why doesn't any moral parent just murder the infant at birth?
because, if there is no afterlife, then the child will also miss out on the opportunity to be happy, to learn, and to experience the only consciousness it will ever have access to. if the child will go to a perfect Heaven, then it will be able to be happy, to learn, and to experience consciousness, without any of the penalties that a mortal life entails.

it's about the net welfare of the child: i can wrap my kid in rubber and ensure that he never experiences the pain of scraping his knee, but then he would miss out on the joys that greater freedom of movement can bring. however, if i could send my kid to a world where it was possible to have total freedom of movement but where it was impossible to ever be hurt then i would LEAP at the chance.

You don't need religion to make this argument. If a child lives long enough to understand the world around it, the child will undergo hardships. Why doesn't any moral parent just murder the infant at birth?


Hardships?? Sorry but that is how you define it I do not define it that way that is an assumption on your part.

what you define as a hardship I define as a challenge. Challenges are worthy and good.

Christians say that Heaven is great and glorious and is valued above life here on earth.

Your argument dosen'y work. Its like saying that we can kill anyone because they would go to heaven.
no, it doesn't. read more carefully.

because, if there is no afterlife, then the child will also miss out on the opportunity to be happy, to learn, and to experience the only consciousness it will ever have access to. if the child will go to a perfect Heaven, then it will be able to be happy, to learn, and to experience consciousness, without any of the penalties that a mortal life entails.

How do we know that there will be learning in heaven? You may just know everything, or you may just be happy, but not learn anything. There are most likely many experiences that one cannot have in heaven (or any kind of afterlife), that only occur in life, not to mention the child's chance to make his/her own decision.

Hardships?? Sorry but that is how you define it I do not define it that way that is an assumption on your part.

This sentence makes no sense.

what you define as a hardship I define as a challenge. Challenges are worthy and good.

So nothing bad ever happens in this world?

This sentence makes no sense.



So nothing bad ever happens in this world?


I thought that you are one who holds to the notion of all is relative??

well your hardship is my challenge and since it is indeed relative by your own definition then I will stand by what I state.


Nothing is good nor bad but thinking that makes it so.

I thought that you are one who holds to the notion of all is relative??

well your hardship is my challenge and since it is indeed relative by your own definition then I will stand by what I state.


Nothing is good nor bad but thinking that makes it so.

I have never stated that all is relative. What is your definition?

How do we know that there will be learning in heaven? You may just know everything, or you may just be happy, but not learn anything. There are most likely many experiences that one cannot have in heaven (or any kind of afterlife), that only occur in life, not to mention the child's chance to make his/her own decision.
i don't know about you, but i could never be happy in a place where i could not learn, so i naturally assumed that a place of perfect happiness would also permit learning. if Heaven were truly a place of perfect happiness then it would need to contain the potential for learning to occur, at least for individuals like myself who consider learning essential to happiness.

however, one could also make the argument that learning is only important for one's mortal life, and in the afterlife learning is irrelevant...if that is the case, then the child wouldn't be missing out on anything by not being able to learn, since the only use for such learning would have been in the mortal life s/he never had.

or one could say that all happiness here on Earth is just a feeble imitation, a pale reflection of the happiness of Heaven, and thus all our attempts to be happy are nothing compared to what will be acheived in Heaven. or, to put it another way: replace general "learning" with "bike riding." suppose that there is no bike riding in Heaven, so a child sent to Heaven before s/he learns to ride a bike will miss out on that experience. since the child is perfectly happy in Heaven, how could they be at all disadvantaged by having missed out on bike riding?

i guess my general point is this: i wouldn't want a child of mine to have all possible experiences in life simply for the sake of having those experiences. i would want my child to have a variety of experiences because i believe that would increase their likelihood of being HAPPY in life. i would want them to learn because i believe that is essential if they are going to be HAPPY. but if i could send them to a place where we effectively cut out the middle man, and make them safe and happy forever, then that would be even better.

or one could say that all happiness here on Earth is just a feeble imitation, a pale reflection of the happiness of Heaven, and thus all our attempts to be happy are nothing compared to what will be acheived in Heaven. or, to put it another way: replace general "learning" with "bike riding." suppose that there is no bike riding in Heaven, so a child sent to Heaven before s/he learns to ride a bike will miss out on that experience. since the child is perfectly happy in Heaven, how could they be at all disadvantaged by having missed out on bike riding?

All of this is predicated on the assumption that experiences in life are meaningless, that free will is meaningless - an assumption that most people, even crazy fundamentalist religious people - don't hold to.

All of this is predicated on the assumption that experiences in life are meaningless, that free will is meaningless - an assumption that most people, even crazy fundamentalist religious people - don't hold to.
perhaps that one paragraph is, but certainly not the rest of it. i was just trying to propose several possible theories that all fit...i'm not saying i think any of them are especially sound, since (of course) i don't believe in Heaven to begin with :P.

I have never stated that all is relative. What is your definition?


In a nutshell.

The debate started as whether or not christians should be morally responsible to send their children to their heaven. ( which is perfect in their eyes by their definition with no hardships or nothing else there or any bad nature)

You stated that you do not need religon to make that determination because there will be hardships in life.
Originally Posted by Dempublicents
You don't need religion to make this argument. If a child lives long enough to understand the world around it, the child will undergo hardships. Why doesn't any moral parent just murder the infant at birth?

First this is a red herring the introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand. The subject is christians should be pleased with abortion because it sends children automatically to heaven.

I wonder do you use this often when arguing with family and loved ones?

I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you. ? ;) :fluffle:

That is a red herring and not fair in an argument. :)

ii guess my general point is this: i wouldn't want a child of mine to have all possible experiences in life simply for the sake of having those experiences. i would want my child to have a variety of experiences because i believe that would increase their likelihood of being HAPPY in life. i would want them to learn because i believe that is essential if they are going to be HAPPY. but if i could send them to a place where we effectively cut out the middle man, and make them safe and happy forever, then that would be even better.

What about free will to decide what experiences they do/do not have?

I want my child to be perfectly happy, but I'm not going to lie and neglect to tell them that their dog died, nor am I going to refuse to get them a dog because I foresee the possibility that the dog will die. If the child chooses to have a dog, they have chosen those things that go along with it.

First this is a red herring the introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand. The subject is christians should be pleased with abortion because it sends children automatically to heaven.

It is perfectly related to the subject at hand, as the entire argument is predicated on the idea that a parent should do whatever they can to avoid something bad happening to their child. If one argues that any parent should kill their infant to send them straight to heaven, one must logically argue that any parent who wishes to keep their child safe and happy should likewise kill their child.

By the way, in case you missed it, the topic is no longer abortion. Go back and read Bottle's post.

perhaps that one paragraph is, but certainly not the rest of it. i was just trying to propose several possible theories that all fit...i'm not saying i think any of them are especially sound, since (of course) i don't believe in Heaven to begin with :P.

Actually, it is. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the entire purpose of life is to gain entrance into heaven, thus presupposing that any Christian must believe that the journey is unimportant.

It is perfectly related to the subject at hand, as the entire argument is predicated on the idea that a parent should do whatever they can to avoid something bad happening to their child. If one argues that any parent should kill their infant to send them straight to heaven, one must logically argue that any parent who wishes to keep their child safe and happy should likewise kill their child.

By the way, in case you missed it, the topic is no longer abortion. Go back and read Bottle's post.


This is totally illogical. I will attempt to explain.

If one argues that any parent should kill their infant to send them straight to heaven, one must logically argue that any parent who wishes to keep their child safe and happy should likewise kill their child.


There is a MAJOR difference here between sending your child to an infinite paradise by christians own definition, and keeping your child safe and happy.

They are not related in the least.

All christians agree that heaven is the ultimate greatness the eternal paradise. there is no arguing this point it is their belief and to them it is fact.

I cannot keep my child safe and happy. Your argument would be better suited to the question why have a child at all??

The christian would want to have tons of children to send more to heaven.

Lets see if I can word this in a different way.

2 sets of parents preparing to have a child.

1st christian we should have children but life here on earth is horrid and terrible and heaven is perfect and lovely therefore we should bear this child and then kill it to send it into paradise.

2nd non christian They do not believe in heaven and perhaps do not think the world is a bad place and there are no hardships only challenges.

:headbang: :fluffle: :)

Actually, it is. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the entire purpose of life is to gain entrance into heaven, thus presupposing that any Christian must believe that the journey is unimportant.


Is this not the ultimate goal of the christian? To achieve heaven?

If one argues that any parent should kill their infant to send them straight to heaven, one must logically argue that any parent who wishes to keep their child safe and happy should likewise kill their child.

Did you not read Bottle's reasoning behind her argument?

There is a MAJOR difference here between sending your child to an infinite paradise by christians own definition, and keeping your child safe and happy.

Are you a Christian? If not, how do you claim to know the definition of heaven according to a Christian? Even if you are, how do you claim to know the definition of all Christians?



Actually, a Biblical interpretation would state that heaven is existing in the presence of God. It is a paradise for those who love God.

[QUOTE=Vangaardia1st christian we should have children but life here on earth is horrid and terrible and heaven is perfect and lovely therefore we should bear this child and then kill it to send it into paradise.

Falsely predicated on the idea that all Christians believe that life on earth is "horrid and terrible" and that the journey of life is unimportant.

Is this not the ultimate goal of the christian? To achieve heaven?

Many of us don't live by a carrot-stick mentality.

The journney is a goal in and of itself.

Many of us don't live by a carrot-stick mentality.

The journney is a goal in and of itself.


Where is this in scripture?

Where is this in scripture?

The entire Old Testament, for one. The ancient Hebrews didn't even conceive of a heaven and hell for most of their history. Christ's admonishments to live a good life and attempt to improve things are another.

Of course, just by asking this question you are making the false assumption that all beliefs must be laid down in scripture.

The entire Old Testament, for one. The ancient Hebrews didn't even conceive of a heaven and hell for most of their history. Christ's admonishments to live a good life and attempt to improve things are another.

Of course, just by asking this question you are making the false assumption that all beliefs must be laid down in scripture.

Well please tell me then where are these beliefs to be found then? If not all in scripture. Did God talk to you personally? Or perhaps you thought up your own beliefs then applied the term christian to them??

I would like to be able to study this form of christianity that you speak of where may I inquire to get the information at?

I do not want to make false assumptions but can only play with the deck presented to me.

luckily this paradox exists only in your own head

chistian people are still PEOPLE. sane people dont kill their children. so christians dont kill their children.

christians submit to the will of god (as they see it). it is the will of god that all human beings perfect and imperfect, born and unborn be given their chance at life. we are not allowed to "play god" and kill people. that is for god to decide. good christians dont fuck with the will of god.

yes there is more to being a christian than trying to get a "get into heaven free card".

Well please tell me then where are these beliefs to be found then? If not all in scripture. Did God talk to you personally? Or perhaps you thought up your own beliefs then applied the term christian to them??

I would like to be able to study this form of christianity that you speak of where may I inquire to get the information at?

I do not want to make false assumptions but can only play with the deck presented to me.

Everyone can have a personal relationship with God. Everyone can ask for God's guidance in determining issues. Everyone interprets that which has been given to them differently.

As for "this form of Christianity", I am referring to Christianity and all religions. Religion is a personal thing. My form of Christianity is different from another Christian's, which is different from another Christian's, and so on. The differences may be subtle or very large.

Everyone can have a personal relationship with God. Everyone can ask for God's guidance in determining issues. Everyone interprets that which has been given to them differently.

As for "this form of Christianity", I am referring to Christianity and all religions. Religion is a personal thing. My form of Christianity is different from another Christian's, which is different from another Christian's, and so on. The differences may be subtle or very large.

I was not aware of this. I mean I knew there were different denominations and all but did not know that God would tell one person one thing and another person another thing that would seem a bit contradictory but perhaps I am mistaken.

This personal relationship you speak of does God speak to you directly?

I was not aware of this. I mean I knew there were different denominations and all but did not know that God would tell one person one thing and another person another thing that would seem a bit contradictory but perhaps I am mistaken.

This personal relationship you speak of does God speak to you directly?

I never said that God would tell one person on thing and one person another.

The personal relationship involves speaking of a sort, but no, I don't hear voices in my head. I feel that God leads me. Obviously, this is open to interpretation - and obviously, being a fallible human being I may come to false conclusions either because I want to, or because I misinterpret the signals. However, this is equally true of all human beings. Because we are all fallible, we will often come to different conclusions.

Long ago, the religion learned that numbers=power.

Thus, abortion became sinful.

What about free will to decide what experiences they do/do not have?

children already lack that free will. they are not free to choose when to go to bed, what to eat, where to attend school, etc etc etc.

also, are you saying there is no free will in Heaven? remember, for the purposes of this discussion Heaven is a perfect place...if perfection does not include free will, then why would we want our children to have it at all?


I want my child to be perfectly happy, but I'm not going to lie and neglect to tell them that their dog died, nor am I going to refuse to get them a dog because I foresee the possibility that the dog will die. If the child chooses to have a dog, they have chosen those things that go along with it.
and if you could send your child to a place where their dog would never die, then that would be a total non-issue. if they wanted a dog they would have a dog, because Heaven is perfect, and that dog would never bite or get sick or run away or die. you would never have to tell them their dog died, and they would never need to learn about the pain of loss, because they would have skipped the entire part of their existence that makes such things necessary.

Actually, it is. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the entire purpose of life is to gain entrance into heaven, thus presupposing that any Christian must believe that the journey is unimportant.
i don't believe i said anything about the purpose of life, just that in the afterlife one would be granted eternal and perfect happiness. the purpose of life could very well be to suffer until you die, for all i know...i made no claims about what the purpose of life might be. the purpose of one's life might be to better the world and help others, or to convert people to your way of thinking; conversely, the purpose of one's life could be to hinder all other people from getting into Heaven, making it more elite and special for those who manage to resist all your created hurdles. however, when you die your purpose in mortal life is no longer relavent.

children already lack that free will. they are not free to choose when to go to bed, what to eat, where to attend school, etc etc etc.

Not true. They still have free will and still make decisions for themselves. Over time, they are capable of making more and more decisions for themselves.

Of course, even in your examples, they have some. A child may not go to bed when told, regardless of the punishment. A child may sneak food and/or refuse to eat dinner, regardless of the punishment. A child may skip school if they do not like attending.

also, are you saying there is no free will in Heaven? remember, for the purposes of this discussion Heaven is a perfect place...if perfection does not include free will, then why would we want our children to have it at all?

I am saying that there are most likely experiences that can only be attained in life.

and if you could send your child to a place where their dog would never die, then that would be a total non-issue. if they wanted a dog they would have a dog, because Heaven is perfect, and that dog would never bite or get sick or run away or die. you would never have to tell them their dog died, and they would never need to learn about the pain of loss, because they would have skipped the entire part of their existence that makes such things necessary.

Perhaps I think that understanding the pain of loss is important.

i don't believe i said anything about the purpose of life, just that in the afterlife one would be granted eternal and perfect happiness. the purpose of life could very well be to suffer until you die, for all i know...i made no claims about what the purpose of life might be. the purpose of one's life might be to better the world and help others, or to convert people to your way of thinking; conversely, the purpose of one's life could be to hinder all other people from getting into Heaven, making it more elite and special for those who manage to resist all your created hurdles. however, when you die your purpose in mortal life is no longer relavent.

You are making the assumption that entrance into heaven and "perfect happiness" is more important than anything that could possibly occur in life, thus making a statement about the purpose of life.

In the Bible, you are only considered a child until you turn 8. After you turn 8, it all depends on your own thoughts and actions.

You are making the assumption that entrance into heaven and "perfect happiness" is more important than anything that could possibly occur in life, thus making a statement about the purpose of life.
no, i am not saying it is more important. i making no statement about the relative importance, only saying that (according to the definition we are using) Heaven will be a place of perfect safety and happiness.

no, i am not saying it is more important. i making no statement about the relative importance, only saying that (according to the definition we are using) Heaven will be a place of perfect safety and happiness.

You are also stating that any Christian should want to have their child bypass the life on earth and go directly to heaven, thus stating that life on earth is less important. Otherwise, your entire argument falls apart at the seams.

I was not aware of this. I mean I knew there were different denominations and all but did not know that God would tell one person one thing and another person another thing that would seem a bit contradictory but perhaps I am mistaken.

This personal relationship you speak of does God speak to you directly?

different people have different interpretations of their religion. as if each person were their own denomination. no one need hear voices in their heads. they are free to make their own judgments based on what they read in the bible and other theological texts.

Not true. They still have free will and still make decisions for themselves. Over time, they are capable of making more and more decisions for themselves.

Of course, even in your examples, they have some. A child may not go to bed when told, regardless of the punishment. A child may sneak food and/or refuse to eat dinner, regardless of the punishment. A child may skip school if they do not like attending.

and in Heaven they could make all those choices, but would never suffer ill experiences as a result.


I am saying that there are most likely experiences that can only be attained in life.

according to your argument thus far, the only experiences that can only be attained in life are experiences of suffering. a child in Heaven could exercise free will, they simply would never have to face any evil effects from that free will...why would it be better for them to live in place where their free will could lead to their harm?


Perhaps I think that understanding the pain of loss is important.
i agree, but only because i do not believe in the Heaven we are describing. if i believed in the Heaven we are discussing then i would not see any benefit to experiencing the pain of loss, since it would be possible to prevent an individual from ever needing that experience. such experiences are useful for mortal life, and (in my opinion) for becoming a self-aware being, but somebody in Heaven would not need such information because they would no longer be alive and they would either a) already be as self aware as they can get or b) would not be self aware at all because self awareness is contradictory to perfection and therefore no beings in Heaven would be self aware.

I find it strange that the Christians in this country hate abortion so. And the "liberal left" should embrace it. Logically it should be reversed let me explain.

Christians ( at least most ) think that when a child dies they automatically go to heaven. Heaven eternal paradise. Children being aborted are being given a one way ticket to paradise for eternity. It gaurentees them eternity with God.
How can eternity with God be a bad thing? How hypocritical to expect those children to grow up and have to make the choice to serve God. This gives those children all eternity to where neither moth nor rust shall bother them.

So are the christians then going to say that freedom out weighs all eternity with God? I thought getting to heaven is the ultimate goal?

Yes by logical standards christians should approve and indorse abortion?

Now for the "liberal left" They stand up for all that is weak and cannot defend itself animals are under horrid oppression from humans and must be freed. How much more innocent is an infant in the womb? There should be public outcry from the compassionate side.

Hypocrisy such a wonderful human attribute.


Okay, being female and feeling this issue strongly affects me, I have a VERY strong belief that abortion should be legal. Obviously, overpopulation is becoming more and more of a problem, and if a child is unwanted, I believe they're much better off if the one who has to carry the child decides on abortion.

I'm not asking anybody to agree, that's just my view.

and in Heaven they could make all those choices, but would never suffer ill experiences as a result.

You make too many assumptions. What makes you think that the afterlife is anything at all like our current life? What makes you think that there is a need to eat or sleep, or that one will have to go to school?

according to your argument thus far, the only experiences that can only be attained in life are experiences of suffering.

I have never stated any such thing.

a child in Heaven could exercise free will, they simply would never have to face any evil effects from that free will...why would it be better for them to live in place where their free will could lead to their harm?

A lack of ill effects takes away the entire idea of free will. If one can only choose the "right" choice, then there really isn't much free will.

i agree, but only because i do not believe in the Heaven we are describing.

I do believe in an afterlife, and I still feel that the journey is very important. Life itself is quite a gift, one that I would not take away from someone.

You are also stating that any Christian should want to have their child bypass the life on earth and go directly to heaven, thus stating that life on earth is less important. Otherwise, your entire argument falls apart at the seams.
again, i am not saying anything about the relative importance of either, just that when the welfare of the child is placed as the primary focus then it would be most logical to send them directly to Heaven. in Heaven they would be forever safe, forever happy, and would know everything that is consistent with perfect happiness.

look at it this way: if Heaven is a place of perfect happiness, then would it be possible for some people to be happier than others? would it be possible for some people to experience more perfection than other? of course not; you cannot have varying degrees of perfection, because something is either perfect or it isn't. thus, a child who died at 4 (for whatever reason) could not be "less perfectly" happy than an adult who experienced 80 years of mortal life. if perfect happiness requires memory of experiences from a mortal life, then the 4 year old would be provided with those memories upon entrance into Heaven...if such memories are inconsistent with perfect happiness then the 80 year old would have them removed upon entrance into Heaven. either way, what happened (or didn't happen) during their life on Earth would ONLY have been important for two things: 1) determining whether or not they got into Heaven, 2) impacting the mortal world during their mortal life. their mortal life would only have been important UNTIL they entered Heaven, whereupon it would no longer be an issue.

again, i am not saying anything about the relative importance of either, just that when the welfare of the child is placed as the primary focus then it would be most logical to send them directly to Heaven. in Heaven they would be forever safe, forever happy, and would know everything that is consistent with perfect happiness.

You assume that the welfare of the child is to be forever happy. This automatically states that the life we lead here on earth is less important than being happy in heaven.

look at it this way: if Heaven is a place of perfect happiness, then would it be possible for some people to be happier than others? would it be possible for some people to experience more perfection than other? of course not; you cannot have varying degrees of perfection, because something is either perfect or it isn't. thus, a child who died at 4 (for whatever reason) could not be "less perfectly" happy than an adult who experienced 80 years of mortal life. if perfect happiness requires memory of experiences from a mortal life, then the 4 year old would be provided with those memories upon entrance into Heaven...if such memories are inconsistent with perfect happiness then the 80 year old would have them removed upon entrance into Heaven. either way, what happened (or didn't happen) during their life on Earth would ONLY have been important for two things: 1) determining whether or not they got into Heaven, 2) impacting the mortal world during their mortal life. their mortal life would only have been important UNTIL they entered Heaven, whereupon it would no longer be an issue.

Is it your contention then that experience, in and of itself, is not a good end?

You make too many assumptions. What makes you think that the afterlife is anything at all like our current life? What makes you think that there is a need to eat or sleep, or that one will have to go to school?

the only thing i assumed was that there was free will in Heaven. if having free will is a Good thing, and if Heaven comprises all that is Good, then those in Heaven will have the same free will (perhaps even BETTER free will) than those of us on Earth.

besides, there are many choices one child will miss out on that another will get to experience; i couldn't choose to go to the beach on Saturdays, because i lived in a place with no beaches, but my cousins lived 100 yards from the ocean. just because they got to make some choices that i didn't have doesn't mean that i am stunted.


I have never stated any such thing.

you have yet to provide an example of a non-suffering event that a Heaven-sent infant misses out on. if Heaven has free will then such a child would have as many choices (if not more) than any earthly child, and the Heaven child would only miss out on the negative side effects (because Heaven is a place of perfect happiness).

as i said above, there are many specific choices that are not available to individuals on planet Earth, but we don't consider ourselves bereft of free will because of them, nor do we feel that our happiness is necessarily lessened because of those restrictions. i cannot choose to put my foot into the mouth of a fire breathing dragon and have that foot incinerated shortly before being bitten off, but i don't feel any sense of regret at missing out on that.


A lack of ill effects takes away the entire idea of free will. If one can only choose the "right" choice, then there really isn't much free will.

totally untrue. indeed, the vast, vast majority of our choices have nothing to do with a "right" choice or a "wrong" choice. indeed, the choices that shape who we are as individuals are almost NEVER a matter of "right" or "wrong."

think of it this way: what distinguishes you from your friends? is it that they think murder is okay, but you don't? is it that they think rape is fun, but you don't? of course not...you are friends with people with whom you agree on the most important "rights" and "wrongs," because you couldn't respect or care about somebody who you thought was fundamentally evil. what makes you different is that when one of your friends chooses to listen to opera you turn up the punkrock. when one of your friends picks up Satre you pick up Plato. when one of your friends paints a landscape you write a ballad. the choices that make us who we are go far beyond whether we think stealing is wrong or whether we think it's a good idea to hit our boss with a 2X4, because the vast majority of people hold identical views on such subjects.

of course, i personally believe that there IS no objective right or wrong, and therefore NONE of the choices we make are a matter of "right" choice versus "wrong" choice.:)

EDIT: i also believe that saying we have "choices" when we will be sent to a torture dimension for picking the "wrong" option is totally foolish. that's an abusive relationship, in a nut shell: "you can choose to disobey me if you want, but i will beat you until you can't see. but don't tell me you aren't free! you are totally free to choose whether you want to do everything my way or be put in the hospital!" we don't accept that line from a boyfriend who smacks his girl around, so why would we accept such a pitful line from a being claiming to be all-powerful?


I do believe in an afterlife, and I still feel that the journey is very important. Life itself is quite a gift, one that I would not take away from someone.
obviously i agree with you on that sentiment, and i hope you realize i am not trying to "refute" that feeling. i am simply saying that if one believes in the Heaven model i have outlined then there is a particular outcome that would be most logical. i have given no reason why somebody SHOULD believe in that Heaven model (i sure as hell don't), or why that Heaven model is even a little compelling (i don't think it is), i'm just trying to figure out a curious inconsistency i have noticed.

RC = Roman Catholic? Then they prescribe that all aborted children are going to hell? Because someone did not sprinkle them with water? God is going to cast a child into eternal hell for not getting water splashed on them?

I find that incredibly repulsive and not sure that Catholics would believe that and if they do they need to find a new religon IMO of course.
Unbaptised children (in RC doctrine) go to limbo. It's basically Hell without torture. You're with all the good, but unsaved people.

no, last i checked if babies are below a certain age they go to heaven if they die
This a Protestant belief, called the "age of accountability." Most Christians (Catholics being the notable exception) believe that one gets to Heaven regardless of works. It's based on faith in Jesus. However, some people do not have the mental ability to understand and follow the idea of "faith" (the six year old, the retard, and others). These people go to Heaven just because they have not sinned.

his is an extension of a thought i had while talking with a Christian friend:
-snip-
Because there are varying degrees of Heaven. How many times does Jesus means various levels of "crowns" and "mansions" for the faithful? Faith gets you INTO Heaven, but works improve your stay there. Besides, if every Christian killed every baby, there would be no Christians, and everyone after them would go to Hell.

I think that christians are caught in a moral dilemma. Even if murder is a sin are not all sins forgiven if repented of? So then you could sin and send your child to a wonderful paradise for all eternity and still be forgiven. I simply cannot see a christian giving a good rationalization of this dilemma.
Because your child would simply go to Heaven, but not have a relationship with God. God would never have had an opportunity to test him, so in essence your child would avoid punishment, rather than receive a reward. Not everyone goes to the same Heaven, Enoch became the Metatron for his works on earth, Peter became the gatekeeper, your rewards in Heaven depend on your actions on earth. Heaven itself is A reward, but not THE reward.

however, for a parent the issue of love comes into the picture. i know that if i ever had a child i would put that child ahead of everything else in the world, no matter what, and ensuring its welfare would have to be the first purpose of my life.
This is unBiblical, God comes before the welfare of your child. Your nation comes before the welfare of your child. Your spouse comes before the welfare of your child.

jesus also didn't have religious discussions over the internet, nor did he have a radio show to try to get God's word out to the masses
That isn 't the point and you know it. Jesus DID do everything possible to spread His message. He DID NOT kill people. It didn't matter if he did it with a gun or with a sword, He could have killed people IF He chose to. He did not kill anyone.

Is this not the ultimate goal of the christian? To achieve heaven?
NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO! That is completely wrong and against Christian belief. The goal of the Christian faith is to lead a life that glorifies the Lord. That is supposed to the sole purpose of any and everything a Christian does. Heaven is secondary.

the only thing i assumed was that there was free will in Heaven. if having free will is a Good thing, and if Heaven comprises all that is Good, then those in Heaven will have the same free will (perhaps even BETTER free will) than those of us on Earth.

You stated that a child would have the same choices in heaven, thus assuming that heaven is like life hear on Earth.

you have yet to provide an example of a non-suffering event that a Heaven-sent infant misses out on. if Heaven has free will then such a child would have as many choices (if not more) than any earthly child, and the Heaven child would only miss out on the negative side effects (because Heaven is a place of perfect happiness).

I don't claim to know what heaven is like. I haven't been there. Perhaps one does not "grow up" any more after being sent to heaven. However, the main thing the child would miss out on would be making its own decisions that resulted in either being there, or not being there.

totally untrue. indeed, the vast, vast majority of our choices have nothing to do with a "right" choice or a "wrong" choice. indeed, the choices that shape who we are as individuals are almost NEVER a matter of "right" or "wrong."

Every choice has a variety of possible results. Some are "better" than others. I can choose to post this or to refrain. Neither is objectively "right" or "wrong", but either choice will impact the future with specific advantages and disadvantages. If I post it, someone may reply to it with an insult, with support, with derision, etc. It may make someone think, or it may make someone ignore me. If I do not, I don't have to deal with any of the above, but I will wonder what those responses might have been.

of course, i personally believe that there IS no objective right or wrong, and therefore NONE of the choices we make are a matter of "right" choice versus "wrong" choice.:)

However, I am sure that you would agree that every choice has a range of desirable and undesirable effects?

obviously i agree with you on that sentiment, and i hope you realize i am not trying to "refute" that feeling. i am simply saying that if one believes in the Heaven model i have outlined then there is a particular outcome that would be most logical. i have given no reason why somebody SHOULD believe in that Heaven model (i sure as hell don't), or why that Heaven model is even a little compelling (i don't think it is), i'm just trying to figure out a curious inconsistency i have noticed.

As I have pointed out, to many, the journey itself is more important than just getting there. As such, there really isn't an inconsistency.

Because there are varying degrees of Heaven. How many times does Jesus means various levels of "crowns" and "mansions" for the faithful? Faith gets you INTO Heaven, but works improve your stay there. Besides, if every Christian killed every baby, there would be no Christians, and everyone after them would go to Hell.
that's not a belief that all Christians hold, however, nor does it fit the definition of Heaven we have been using for our discussion.


Because your child would simply go to Heaven, but not have a relationship with God. God would never have had an opportunity to test him, so in essence your child would avoid punishment, rather than receive a reward. Not everyone goes to the same Heaven, Enoch became the Metatron for his works on earth, Peter became the gatekeeper, your rewards in Heaven depend on your actions on earth. Heaven itself is A reward, but not THE reward.

this means, then, that children who die naturally in childhood are "punished" by being denied that contact with God...how is that a fair outcome?

it also doesn't fit the defintion of Heaven being used for the discussion.


This is unBiblical, God comes before the welfare of your child. Your nation comes before the welfare of your child. Your spouse comes before the welfare of your child.

that would be an answer, then; you put other things ahead of your child's welfare, so you don't do what is best for your child if (for instance) your country needs that child...i guess that means that if my country needed human test subjects for a vaccine that might save millions, i should donate my child? i don't know why, but that just doesn't sit quite right with me...


That isn 't the point and you know it. Jesus DID do everything possible to spread His message. He DID NOT kill people. It didn't matter if he did it with a gun or with a sword, He could have killed people IF He chose to. He did not kill anyone.

again, Jesus also did not rollerblade. i have yet to meet a Christian who believes we should ONLY do those things that Jesus did during his life.

that's not a belief that all Christians hold, however, nor does it fit the definition of Heaven we have been using for our discussion.
It doesn't matter what definition you've been using if it's wrong.

this means, then, that children who die naturally in childhood are "punished" by being denied that contact with God...how is that a fair outcome?

it also doesn't fit the defintion of Heaven being used for the discussion.
People are punished all the time for things that aren't there fault. How many billions of African and Asians go to Hell for not believing in God? Is that fair? No. Does it happen? Yes. Christianity has very little to do with "fair."

It doesn't matter what definition you've been using if it's wrong.

that would be an answer, then; you put other things ahead of your child's welfare, so you don't do what is best for your child if (for instance) your country needs that child...i guess that means that if my country needed human test subjects for a vaccine that might save millions, i should donate my child? i don't know why, but that just doesn't sit quite right with me...
Your first duty is to God. If something is in conflict with that (if your spouse wants you to convert to Hinduism, for example), you go with what God wants you to do. Your second duty is to your nation. If your nation requires you to go off to fight a war, but in doing so your wife would suffer hardship, you go to fight the war, if it also is pleasing to God (WW2, Allies' side). Your third duty is to your wife, if there is a conflict between your wife and your child (for example, if your wife is going to die in childbirth, you kill the child). And so on and so forth.

again, Jesus also did not rollerblade. i have yet to meet a Christian who believes we should ONLY do those things that Jesus did during his life.
Jesus did move around. He did not kill people. Stop being facetious.

You stated that a child would have the same choices in heaven, thus assuming that heaven is like life hear on Earth.

a child in Heaven would have access to all of Goodness. if free will is Good, then the child would have access to as much of that free will as any earth-bound child. if free will is not Good then it would be a good thing that the Heaven child is without it.



I don't claim to know what heaven is like. I haven't been there. Perhaps one does not "grow up" any more after being sent to heaven. However, the main thing the child would miss out on would be making its own decisions that resulted in either being there, or not being there.

sure, just like a child killed in a car wreck, or a child who dies slowly of cancer. if that's the price the kid pays for eternal safety and happiness, i call it a bargain.


Every choice has a variety of possible results. Some are "better" than others. I can choose to post this or to refrain. Neither is objectively "right" or "wrong", but either choice will impact the future with specific advantages and disadvantages. If I post it, someone may reply to it with an insult, with support, with derision, etc. It may make someone think, or it may make someone ignore me. If I do not, I don't have to deal with any of the above, but I will wonder what those responses might have been.

right. so? if free will is Good then a child in Heaven will enjoy as much (or more) of it as you do.


However, I am sure that you would agree that every choice has a range of desirable and undesirable effects?

not at all. if i choose to have lime sherbert rather than lemon sherbert there is no difference between the possible positives and negatives arising from those options.


As I have pointed out, to many, the journey itself is more important than just getting there. As such, there really isn't an inconsistency.
and what i am saying is that if a person accepted the version of Heaven being presented then it would be illogical to claim the journey is itself is more important than getting there. one handful of mortal years, compared to eternity...if you really think that your 70-odd years of Earthly life are going to be more important than the rest of your whole eternity, then you either don't give Heaven much credit or you grossly overestimate your importance in the world :).

It doesn't matter what definition you've been using if it's wrong.

oh, i wasn't aware you had been to Heaven! do tell, what's it like?

People are punished all the time for things that aren't there fault. How many billions of African and Asians go to Hell for not believing in God? Is that fair? No. Does it happen? Yes. Christianity has very little to do with "fair."

then your God is either not all-powerful or not all-good. either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion.


Your first duty is to God. If something is in conflict with that (if your spouse wants you to convert to Hinduism, for example), you go with what God wants you to do. Your second duty is to your nation. If your nation requires you to go off to fight a war, but in doing so your wife would suffer hardship, you go to fight the war, if it also is pleasing to God (WW2, Allies' side). Your third duty is to your wife, if there is a conflict between your wife and your child (for example, if your wife is going to die in childbirth, you kill the child). And so on and so forth.

please be more careful with your wording; those may be YOUR duties, but they are not mine. indeed, they are quite contradictory to my actual duties.


Jesus did move around. He did not kill people. Stop being facetious.
Jesus didn't move around by using rollerskates, and he didn't help people get to Heaven by killing them. stop being dense.

a child in Heaven would have access to all of Goodness. if free will is Good, then the child would have access to as much of that free will as any earth-bound child. if free will is not Good then it would be a good thing that the Heaven child is without it.

Again, by the definition of heaven you are using, free will would be impossible - there would be no possibility of any adverse affects for any decision.

not at all. if i choose to have lime sherbert rather than lemon sherbert there is no difference between the possible positives and negatives arising from those options.

Yes, there are. You will either taste lime or lemon, and you might wish you had had the other. Next time you go to get sherbert, there will be less of one or the other to have, reducing your options. Which you eat may determine whether or not your toothpaste tastes nasty when you go to brush your teeth.

and what i am saying is that if a person accepted the version of Heaven being presented then it would be illogical to claim the journey is itself is more important than getting there. one handful of mortal years, compared to eternity...if you really think that your 70-odd years of Earthly life are going to be more important than the rest of your whole eternity, then you either don't give Heaven much credit or you grossly overestimate your importance in the world :).

It's not that I don't give heaven credit, it's that I don't claim to know what it will be like, or how life on earth will impact it. I do, however, think that, even if admission into God's presence occurs for all, after varying amounts of time (as many believe), the experience of determining your own way there is extremely important, and is exactly why we are here.

oh, i wasn't aware you had been to Heaven! do tell, what's it like?
This is what Heaven is like:
http://www.preachtheword.co.uk/transcripts/misc0006-howmanycrownsinheaven.html

then your God is either not all-powerful or not all-good. either way, it's irrelevant to this discussion.
He is both. He gave us free will, therefore our problems are our fault. Not His.

please be more careful with your wording; those may be YOUR duties, but they are not mine. indeed, they are quite contradictory to my actual duties.
If you believe the Bible, they are. If you don't, you're not a Christian, and thus shouldn't be speaking on their beliefs.

Jesus didn't move around by using rollerskates, and he didn't help people get to Heaven by killing them. stop being dense.
HE DIDN'T KILL PEOPLE AT ALL. How many DID he kill? Negative some. He killed NO ONE. He moved, maybe not on rollarskates, but He did. It doesn't matter if He moved in a rocketship, on rollarblades, or on a camel, He moved. It doesn't matter if He didn't kill people with a machine gun, with poison, or with rocks, sticks, and whips. HE DIDN'T KILL. There's a line where you pass being ignorant and start being stupid. That line is several feet behind you.