From: dresen	Date: February 8th, 2003 10:24 am (UTC)		(Link)

Wow, very interesting arguments..

As a side-note, have you ever preached on the street, or handed out leaflets etc? If not, why not? :)

	From: vexen	Date: February 9th, 2003 04:20 pm (UTC)		(Link)

People get enough of that rubbish with the Christians around London, I think other religions and atheists too would just tarnish peoples' view of those things, too! Well... I guess we've got the Hare Krishnas, which are exceptional because people like their public displays! Christians and Jehovis Witnesses are both hated for their proselytisation! Atheism in America is also much more confrontational than here, I think because there are less atheists and it's more controversial, but American atheists' leaflets and literature makes me cringe and dislike it in the same way I dislike theist social literature!

	From: empiress	Date: February 8th, 2003 12:46 pm (UTC)		(Link)

As a Universalist this argument does not apply to my worldview, but as is often the case, your premises are based on a number of misunderstandings of conservative/evangelical Christianity and Judaism.

First, the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" would actually be rendered, "Thou shalt not murder" in Hebrew. There is an acknowledged difference in every society that murder and killing are fundamentally different because "killing" in a war or in self-defense is not a crime whereas "murdering" someone in cold blood is. These words are not synonymous. The Hebraic verses you site in 1 Samuel and Numbers call for killing in the context of war and are therefore not considered cases of murder by the Hebrews. Christians maintain this Jewish perspective. The Hebraic verses you site in Exodus and 2 Samuel describe events whereby natural death occurred to children (and was ascribed to God) and was not an act committed by people...eg in both cases death was a natural occurance and "infanticide" does not apply to natural death. Using these verses out of context is unhelpful for this reason. I think one could argue that violence, war, and killing were a natural part of life among all ancient middle eastern cultures, but tring to apply modern day conceptions such as "infanticide" to these cultures is an anachronism.

Btw, this in no way justifies the atrocities described and attributed by the ancient Hebrews to "God," but it does clear up the otherwise blatant inconsistency you are claiming exists.

The next misunderstanding is the assumption that all or even most conservative Christians believe that babies who have died automatically go to heaven. Very few believe this. Many conservative Christians believe that the souls of babies and young children will be allowed to mature and then given the chance to make a decision for or against God in free will..therefore shortening life does not affect a soul's ability to choose hell or heaven. Those who believe in predestination believe that God already knows what the child would have chosen (hell or heaven) and the soul of the baby will be sent to that location accordingly. Most Christians believe that we -cannot- know with any great assurance exactly what will happen after death and they would never act on mere guesses or opinions about what might or could happen.

But let's pretend that there are actually many non-Universalist Christians who strongly believe that all babies and young children who die will go to heaven. There is still a very moral reason why they should not kill their children (even besides the clear commandments against murder). The reason is that they do not know what or who their children may grow up to become, and for all they know, their child could be one who brings salvation to millions. Killing them would mean the "loss" of salvation for all those their child might have saved. The unknown life and destiny of a child is moral reason not to kill them.

The most important factor in a Christian's life is knowing and doing the will of God...not heaven or hell. Many Christians have sacrificed themselves and their children in cases of martyrdom because they believed it was God's will. For most Christian's, acting outside of God's expressed will and command is always the worst evil, worse than hell itself.

Again, the insonsistency you claim for -not- killing one's baby is simply not evident.

While the vast majority of conservative Christians and Jews do not know for sure what happens to babies and young children when they die, they do believe that cold blooded murder is evil. There is absolutely no way to justify murdering one's own child in the hope of getting their soul into heaven regardless of which stream of thought one takes in traditional Christianity.

	From: vexen	Date: February 9th, 2003 02:05 am (UTC)		(Link)

Can I quote you on a few things you've said? (Most notably on the comments on what happens to babies souls' if they die very young)

On the "Do no kill", I do actually mean "murder", and for that reason I didn't list all the wars and battles described in the OT! I stuck to the lists that included children and babies as part of the victims of the slaughter, because I count that as murder and not killing made necessary by war / self defence.

	From: empiress	Date: February 8th, 2003 12:46 pm (UTC)		(Link)

By the way, this statement is also a misunderstanding of Buddhism: "Buddhism, which was an atheistic reaction against Hinduism, retained Hinduisms' belief in Nirvana for all beings." Some think that Buddhism is atheistic because the Buddha did not speak much about God or the gods, but this is a misrepesentation of Buddhism. Shakyamuni Buddha never denied the existence of God or the gods. For Buddha, the gods were living realities. In the Buddha's sayings and scriptures the gods are often mentioned respectfully. I believe Buddha did not discuss God or the gods very much because Buddha saw the way to enlightenment as something one could achieve through human effort. This is one reason Buddhism is so compatible with nearly any world view....it simply does not get into the metaphysical questions and focuses on the here and now human activity. I believe Buddha would have answered the question of whether "God" (as defined by most religions today) exists in the same way he answered when asked if souls exist: Yes and No. The reason? Buddha knew that affirming or denying concepts that are beyond our comphrension would lead us into greater illusions about those concepts. There is an incredible amount of wisdom in that and surely the apophatics and mystics of all traditions agree on some level.

From: katminnaar	Date: February 8th, 2003 07:38 pm (UTC)		(Link)

1. Interesting question: "If Christianity is true..."

2. I agree with your passage from "confused religious ethics" and the assessment insomuch as in general, many 'Theists are inherently less moral.'

3. The experience of suffering being 'for our own benefit' does sound very *Eastern.* Personally, I certainly side with that explanation; otherwise, I'd be constantly questioning whether certain events WERE evil! However, even the definition of evil has to be worked out. Are natural disasters evil? Auto accidents? Obviously, one is human-caused and the other not, generally speaking. If one views everything except the most obvious, unavoidable NATURAL disasters or deaths to have a human cause, then the question of evil lies in the acts of humans.

4. I don't think Buddhism is actually meant to be taken as completely atheistic, as empiress has stated.

:)

	From: vexen	Date: February 9th, 2003 06:00 pm (UTC)		(Link)

I'm changing "Theists are inherently less moral" to "Theists are potentially less moral", because I sound a bit nasty otherwise.

What if Human caused evil, such as mass murderers, are also natural? (Ie, natural diseases and genetic disorders can cause people to be predisposed to violent behavior). The natural world (animal eats animal, etc) seems to contain lots of evil of it's own, I think Human beings (as another animal) are merely part of nature, and therefore are partially evil. (But note the use of the word "evil" is very subjective, and the discussion of "what is 'evil'" as a concept is a very wide one!)

I've updated the essay also to include a footnote on whether Buddhism is atheistic or not, including a comment by Christmas Humphreys (a Buddhist who founded the well respected London based Buddhist Society), and Moojan Momen (a Bahai and interfaith scholar). From the looks of it, Empiress is expressing similar opinions to Momen, that Buddhism doesn't plainly deny or confirm the existence of Gods, but that deity-respect (and even worship) exists amongst some followers of Buddhism, whether or not such things are supported by the teachings.

From: (Anonymous)	Date: February 10th, 2003 10:05 am (UTC)		(Link)
HuHz?...

OKay, there are a few things wrong with your essay. One, it lacks turth. You took the ible verses out of context completely. The first time, the one in Exodus, the pharoah of Egypt kept telling Moses that he would let the Isrealites go, and then didn't. Moses warned him, after nine plagues (he warned the pharoah of those, too) that God would allow hevery first born child in Egypt to die if he didn't let them go. When he pharoah refused, he told the Isrealites to cover the door pots with lambs blood, and their children would be spared.
And in Second Samuel, David had an affair with Bathsheeba, and had her husband killed when she got pregnant. The Lord punished David by allowing his son to die, and David knew he was wrong. And NO, Christianity does not allow infanticide. There is no excuse for killing another human being.All the examples you showed were punishments from God, therefore it was justified.

	From: vexen	Date: February 10th, 2003 12:07 pm (UTC)		(Link)
	Re: HuHz?...

I know they are punishments from God. Punishment of an infant for someone else's misdemeanor is injustice, as well as infanticide. That it was God who done it himself (as in the cases you pointed out) or God who commanded it be done (David's son, and in times of war), it doesn't matter which, it's still Christin God-sanctioned infanticide.

	From: hiddenpaw	Date: February 10th, 2003 12:36 pm (UTC)		(Link)

If we base this on christian theolergy there are two possible arguments.

1) we are born in sin having an abortion is about the only way to get the job done quickenough.

2) Life is a test to see if we are fit for heaven. it would be immoral to help sombody cheat the test.

	From: vexen	Date: February 10th, 2003 12:54 pm (UTC)		(Link)

1) What job?

2) Immoral, perhaps, but if you done it out of love to help someone (who themselves are innocent of the cheating) then it is a self-sacrifice (ie, committing an evil in order to help your baby). God already knows who will pass the tests, etc, so it doesn't actually matter if a baby dies or not; God knows what the baby would have chosen.