A modest proposal

[asdf]

For those who believe that:

1. 100% of embryos, blastocysts, fetuses, babies, and children (up to an 'age of accountability') go to paradise if they die; and
2. The vast majority of people over the age of accountability will be eternally tormented after they die —

Would not the most logical and moral stance be to terminate as many pregnancies (and indeed, kill newborns and children!) as possible? By all probability, would it not be 'rescuing' people, from an eternal perspective?

What am I missing here?

[awediot]

Originally Posted by asdf

For those who believe that:

1. 100% of embryos, blastocysts, fetuses, babies, and children (up to an 'age of accountability' go to paradise if they die; and
2. The vast majority of people over the age of accountability will be eternally tormented after they die —

Would not the most logical and moral stance be to terminate as many pregnancies (and indeed, kill newborns and children!) as possible? By all probability, would it not be 'rescuing' people, from an eternal perspective?

What am I missing here?

Makes a murderer of you.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by awediot

Makes a murderer of you.

What if in doing so you **** yourself, but "save" hundreds, thousands, millions of others? Choose hell out of your own morality, selflessly, for the sake of others...

Is that not a moral option?

Moses seemed to think so:

But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.
-Ex 32.32

Paul seemed to think so:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race
-Ro 9.3

[awediot]

Originally Posted by asdf

What if in doing so you **** yourself, but "save" hundreds, thousands, millions of others? Choose hell out of your own morality, selflessly, for the sake of others...

Is that not a moral option?

Moses seemed to think so:

But now, please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.
-Ex 32.32

Paul seemed to think so:

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race
-Ro 9.3

It's a logical speculation, but we don't know that we'd save any (I don't even know if God uses a soul on what He knows will be aborted) _ No one gets an abortion with the idea it will save their baby's soul... We can't speculate on what the not even born's life will eternally end as. It's just a rationale...

And, yes, it is noble to think we could offer our soul for the sake of another...but it doesn't really work that way... God's not a game show host.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by awediot

It's a logical speculation, but we don't know that we'd save any (I don't even know if God uses a soul on what He knows will be aborted) _ No one gets an abortion with the idea it will save their baby's soul... We can't speculate on what the not even born's life will eternally end as. It's just a rationale...

And, yes, it is noble to think we could offer our soul for the sake of another...but it doesn't really work that way... God's not a game show host.

I'm with you on all that...just exploring what others may think, who hold a little bit tighter to their "knowledge" of what God will and will not do with human "souls".

[awediot]

Originally Posted by asdf

I'm with you on all that...just exploring what others may think, who hold a little bit tighter to their "knowledge" of what God will and will not do with human "souls".

Sensed some "devil's advocate" undertone there ...

But it is a "logical" argument... Guess it's also a good argument against the worship of Logic as well...

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

For those who believe that:

1. 100% of embryos, blastocysts, fetuses, babies, and children (up to an 'age of accountability' go to paradise if they die; and
2. The vast majority of people over the age of accountability will be eternally tormented after they die —

Would not the most logical and moral stance be to terminate as many pregnancies (and indeed, kill newborns and children!) as possible? By all probability, would it not be 'rescuing' people, from an eternal perspective?

What am I missing here?

The more logical stance is to let life continue as God created it in the womb. Killing life for convenience sakes only begets character ***isination within the self and would only contribute to less souls in heaven.

[asdf]

I'm afraid I'm not understanding your reply.

Originally Posted by Columcille

The more logical stance is to let life continue as God created it in the womb.

"Letting life continue" requires a great deal of intervention on the part of the mother.

Killing life for convenience sakes only begets character ***isination within the self

I don't believe anyone kills "for convenience sake". I don't understand what you're saying about "character ******ination".

and would only contribute to less souls in heaven.

I certainly don't understand you here. If you're accepting the premises from the OP, on what basis would there be less souls in heaven?

[CleoSquare]

Originally Posted by awediot

It's a logical speculation, but we don't know that we'd save any (I don't even know if God uses a soul on what He knows will be aborted) _ No one gets an abortion with the idea it will save their baby's soul... We can't speculate on what the not even born's life will eternally end as. It's just a rationale...

And, yes, it is noble to think we could offer our soul for the sake of another...but it doesn't really work that way... God's not a game show host.

There are mothers suffering from severe post natal psychosis that 'believe' they are saving thier babies by killing them.... Many of these mothers love their babies dearly, in fact this is why in their delusional state they do what they do... sometimes believeng they condemn themselves to hell in the doing.

I think what ASDF proposes is the logical conclusion to the sort of rigid belief that underpins a lot of these discussions...

[Columcille]

asdf, I am sorry you do not understand my position. I feel it is more dangerous to play God in supporting abortion or actually obtaining an abortion. If God is the creator of life, why do people seek to take it away? I am here only speaking to those that claim to be Christians and support abortion.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Columcille

asdf, I am sorry you do not understand my position. I feel it is more dangerous to play God in supporting abortion or actually obtaining an abortion. If God is the creator of life, why do people seek to take it away? I am here only speaking to those that claim to be Christians and support abortion.

I understand what you're saying here. What I didn't understand is how you get from this belief (shouldn't "play God") to the idea that there would be "less souls in heaven", if you followed the premises from the OP.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by asdf

I understand what you're saying here. What I didn't understand is how you get from this belief (shouldn't "play God") to the idea that there would be "less souls in heaven", if you followed the premises from the OP.

First off, I neither accept nor reject the first premise that states:

up to an 'age of accountability' go to paradise if they die

. I simply do not know if God recycles those souls back down until they come to an age of accountability or if the development of the soul automatically places these innocents into heaven. I certainly am suppose to believe in infant baptism, and in some ways we could say the aborted are baptised into their own blood. My Church clearly does not believe in any state of "limbo." What my Church does say though, is that God formed them in the womb at conception. So it is not our responsibility to take that life. It is more certain that God will make everyone accountable for their deeds, and if unrepentant, will certainly place them outside God's kingdom. I guess you can say it is an open ended conjecture since what is not known cannot be ascertained by the reasoning of the OP.

[asdf]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm a little bit closer to understanding.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by asdf

For those who believe that:

1. 100% of embryos, blastocysts, fetuses, babies, and children (up to an 'age of accountability' go to paradise if they die; and
2. The vast majority of people over the age of accountability will be eternally tormented after they die —

Would not the most logical and moral stance be to terminate as many pregnancies (and indeed, kill newborns and children!) as possible? By all probability, would it not be 'rescuing' people, from an eternal perspective?

What am I missing here?

There is nothing I wouldn't do to protect my children from harm when they were little. They are grown now and I expect them to take care of themselves--with a little help and advise from Mom, from time to time. Now I am a grandmother and there is nothing I wouln't do to protect my grandchild.

If I honestly, and whole-heartedly believed that my children will likely one day be tortured, I would prevent them from being born, up to, and including abortion. If I became convinced of this after they were born, I might kill them.

Sounds crazy, I know. I'm talking about being certain that god and hell exist, and their chances of avoiding eternal torment was very, very slim.

If, in the real world, 18th century Salem, your 12 year old daughter is on trial for witchcraft, and you know, with some certainty, she will be tortured and burned at the stake, or drowned, or murdered in some other horrible way, wouldn't you make her death quick and relatively easy, if you could?

[asdf]

Originally Posted by GiGi

There is nothing I wouldn't do to protect my children from harm when they were little. They are grown now and I expect them to take care of themselves--with a little help and advise from Mom, from time to time. Now I am a grandmother and there is nothing I wouln't do to protect my grandchild.

If I honestly, and whole-heartedly believed that my children will likely one day be tortured, I would prevent them from being born, up to, and including abortion. If I became convinced of this after they were born, I might kill them.

Sounds crazy, I know. I'm talking about being certain that god and hell exist, and their chances of avoiding eternal torment was very, very slim.

If, in the real world, 18th century Salem, your 12 year old daughter is on trial for witchcraft, and you know, with some certainty, she will be tortured and burned at the stake, or drowned, or murdered in some other horrible way, wouldn't you make her death quick and relatively easy, if you could?

I agree with you. It seems to me that this is an appropriate - and again, immensely moral - response to the belief that by all likelihood your child would be eternally tortured if allowed to grow up.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by asdf

I agree with you. It seems to me that this is an appropriate - and again, immensely moral - response to the belief that by all likelihood your child would be eternally tortured if allowed to grow up.

This is, I think, a problem with applying logical reasoning to irrational premises.

TRiG.

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by Columcille

asdf, I am sorry you do not understand my position. I feel it is more dangerous to play God in supporting abortion or actually obtaining an abortion. If God is the creator of life, why do people seek to take it away? I am here only speaking to those that claim to be Christians and support abortion.

this brings into question for me...the "playing God" with contraceptives...
or bringing children into existence with a little "help" for those who can't have them...
and then if we go there...what of saving lives with medicine? life support systems, and what not...
at what point do we draw the line, with the knowledge we gain in science and the medical field?


Daniel I think your op is a great thread starter....
One has to actually think about what one believes about the whole...
"blanket of grace" thingy (which is not actually in the Bible) and all those other little interesting doctrines...

Not to mention....how we are to use wisdom of science and medicine, that we gain, in the most moral and beneficial way...(heck of a lotta responsibility...)

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

For those who believe that:

1. 100% of embryos, blastocysts, fetuses, babies, and children (up to an 'age of accountability' go to paradise if they die; and
2. The vast majority of people over the age of accountability will be eternally tormented after they die —

Would not the most logical and moral stance be to terminate as many pregnancies (and indeed, kill newborns and children!) as possible? By all probability, would it not be 'rescuing' people, from an eternal perspective?

What am I missing here?

We develop and reveal our true character in the face of opposition, even if that opposition results in our death, so to deprive your child of those types of experiences just because life can get really hard sometimes, would be to deprive them of those opportunities... which perhaps could even help others by seeing the way they "lived" their lives until their death.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

We develop and reveal our true character in the face of opposition, even if that opposition results in our death, so to deprive your child of those types of experiences just because life can get really hard sometimes, would be to deprive them of those opportunities... which perhaps could even help others by seeing the way they "lived" their lives until their death.

Hm...perhaps you misunderstood the OP. I was not referring to a life of hardship, but an afterlife of eternal torture.

If you believe in that, and believe that in all likelihood (based on probability) your child would be subjected to that, then what is depriving them of a few years of 'opportunity' in the light of the certainty of paradise?

And again, this is just a thought experiment. Personally, I don't agree with the premises, so the deductions don't follow. But for those who do agree with the premises, I'm having a hard time seeing how they get around the deduction.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by sunofmysoul

this brings into question for me...the "playing God" with contraceptives...
or bringing children into existence with a little "help" for those who can't have them...
and then if we go there...what of saving lives with medicine? life support systems, and what not...
at what point do we draw the line, with the knowledge we gain in science and the medical field?


Daniel I think your op is a great thread starter....
One has to actually think about what one believes about the whole...
"blanket of grace" thingy (which is not actually in the Bible) and all those other little interesting doctrines...

Not to mention....how we are to use wisdom of science and medicine, that we gain, in the most moral and beneficial way...(heck of a lotta responsibility...)

Thought provoking.
I favor birth control, first trimester abortion on demand, and science that keeps us healthy and extends our life expectency.
I object to having children we can't afford to care for, forcing people to have children they don't want, and witholding life saving treatment from the elderly, if they want it.
If we can say, 'don't play god' by using birth control, or providing abortion services, it stands to reason that we should not 'play god' by taking extraordinary steps to save premmies, or resuscitating heart attack victims, vaccinating the population against disease, or giving antibotics to cure grandma's pnuemonia.

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

Hm...perhaps you misunderstood the OP. I was not referring to a life of hardship, but an afterlife of eternal torture.

You seem to be presupposing that a good person is going to refuse to accept the help of our Savior, which doesn't make good sense to me.

Sure, we all sin, except for our Savior, but we can also be forgiven for all of our sins, and only the worst of people would refuse his help, so why would you even want those people to end up in heaven ?

If you believe in that, and believe that in all likelihood (based on probability) your child would be subjected to that, then what is depriving them of a few years of 'opportunity' in the light of the certainty of paradise?

Nothing at all, unless they would refuse the help of our Savior.

And again, this is just a thought experiment. Personally, I don't agree with the premises, so the deductions don't follow. But for those who do agree with the premises, I'm having a hard time seeing how they get around the deduction.

Me too.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

You seem to be presupposing that a good person is going to refuse to accept the help of our Savior, which doesn't make good sense to me.

I agree, but the thought experiment is aimed at those who believe that the vast majority of all people will refuse to come to God, and thus doom themselves.

Sure, we all sin, except for our Savior, but we can also be forgiven for all of our sins, and only the worst of people would refuse his help, so why would you even want those people to end up in heaven ?

I desire reconciliation for all, even the "worst of people". I don't know what will happen after death, and I honestly don't speculate about it too much. I don't believe the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, to be "going to heaven after we die".

[Bat-Man]

Originally Posted by asdf

I agree, but the thought experiment is aimed at those who believe that the vast majority of all people will refuse to come to God, and thus doom themselves.

Okay.

I desire reconciliation for all, even the "worst of people". I don't know what will happen after death, and I honestly don't speculate about it too much. I don't believe the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, to be "going to heaven after we die".

I don't believe the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, is all about going to heaven after we die, either.

I believe the the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, is all about becoming as perfect as our Father in heaven, for those who want to.

[GiGi]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

You seem to be presupposing that a good person is going to refuse to accept the help of our Savior, which doesn't make good sense to me.

I like to think I'm a good person, and I do not believe that god, or any other supernatural being exists. We're born, we live, we die. That's about it. Without evidence of hell, there's nothing to save us from.
Does that count as a 'refusal'? It makes good sense to me.

[asdf]

Originally Posted by Bat-Man

I don't believe the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, is all about going to heaven after we die, either.

I believe the the goal of salvation, or Christianity, or knowledge of God, is all about becoming as perfect as our Father in heaven, for those who want to.

In other words, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?