Are christian egotistical in fighting against infanticide?

Status
Not open for further replies.

John Bunyan

Puritan Board Freshman
If by dying babies in general will go to Heaven (seems to me that this is the standard belief of christians, even the catholics saying that babies might be saved from hell by the grace of God wihout being baptized, although they would still loose the best things in Heaen), or if the elect babies are going to Heaven, is it egotistical not to kill them and prevent them from sinning? Isn't egotistical to avoid doing this so that we might not perish or sin against God? Wouldn't ending babies lifes be an altruistic action of ours where we give up our salvation for their good? If you say that non-elect babies will also go to Hell, how is that fair? And wouldn't we be preventing a lot of suffering caused by the wicked babies on the elect ones by doing so?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no psycho, this is clearly wrong. But I've had the following conversation in a dream of mine, and I really don't know how to respond properly to my dream atheist (what a weird phrase, isn't it?). How would you answer him?

Atheist - Why do we suffer?
Christian - We suffer mainly because our actions and those of others around us, take a look, for example, in the fact that most people who suffer are lead to this by the action of others, and even some of the so-called 'natural evil' is greatly enhanced by our actions, or by those of our ancestors. See how earthquakes affect countries such as Japan less than others, why is it so? Because while the japanese are organized and use their money to prevent quakes, other countries are largely unorganized and do not take preventive measures against earthquakes. Also, although some of these countries clearly have not enough money to take such measures, nothing stops others from helping them. And the reason why they're affected by earthquakes in the first place is because they live in a risk zone, and they live there because their ancestors lived there, and their ancestors likewise live there, either by their own will or compelled by force by another humans. We suffer because we act wickedly, and other persons as well. If we were morally upright, even natural evil would be greatly reduced, and persons living in places affected by earthquakes would be able to simply move to a better place, helped by others.
Atheist- If God is so good, why won't He help us, why don't he intervenes in our behalf?
Because God is not morally bound to prolong any life, nor to stop any suffering mostly caused by we ourselves . See, the fact is that even if we're not all a bunch of Hitlers, no one can truly proclaim to be righteous, for doing so would be lying, and lying is not a righteous action. There is no man out there who does no evil, we all do evil all the time unrepentantly, and we don't even wish good either. Our thoughts are constantly driven by evil ideas, and we spend a lot of time planning or wishing evil things. And don't be surprised by that affirmation of mine, for everything that is not good is evil, and each evil, no matter how small, is an evil. There might be some actions that are more wicked than others, but even the less wicked of the wicked actions is wicked - that's why it's called a wicked action in the first place.
Atheist- So we don't deserve it?
Christian- Yes.
Atheist- Wouldn't it be good to help undeserving people?
Christian- It would not be just, don't you agree?
Atheist- Yes, but it would be good.
Christian- If something is not just, it cannot be good by definition, so my answer is no.
Atheist- Ok... But what about animals? They suffer a lot and do no evil.
Christian- We define animals to be morally neutral because they are not moral agents, but if we where to consider them as such, most animals would be bad. They are not, though, so let me answer you properly. Animals are not created in the image of God, so they can't commit evil actions, even if their actions, if performed by humans, would certainly be called evil - some lions even kill the children of other lions to acquire power over the mothers by procreating with them!.
Atheist- Why do animals suffer?
Christian- Most animals are not developed enough to really feel pain. Then some of them can feel pain, but do not realise that they are, matter fact, in pain, so they do not suffer. Now, some animals, like higher primates, know they're in pain, but they are in the minority. Suffering is only a pertinent question, I believe, when it's related to humans and...
Atheist-They don't know they're in pain? How would you know?
Christian- I've read it somewhere on the internet, don't remember when. But the point is: animal suffering is irrelevant, and I don't think that this is really a big issue to determine whether or not God exists. Could be the fact that, for example, the sins of angels helped to destroy our world as much as ours, but in another level.
Atheist- That seems unlikely...
Christian- Says whom? I disagree! And even if this is, matter fact, a bad explanation, it is still logically valid. Ask something that you really care about.
Atheist- What about babies, why are they be able to suffer so much, to born anencephalous or to be murdered if a good God really exists?
Christian- I don't know, but I must say that, once more, we have human action here, not only against born but against unborn babies.
Atheist- Abortion?
Christian- Yes. The greatest threat to infants, as to us all, are other persons.
Atheist- Wait, wait, wait. But this is not fair.
Christian- Indeed.
Atheist- So children so young that they can't have possibly committed any evil deed can be just killed by random persons and that's it, how is God fair?
Christian- But you gotta see that it's worst to the killer to kill than to the victim to die. The killer, like every wrongdoer, will pay the due consequence to his crimes in Hell, eternally separated from God, the source of all goodness. The baby, however, will not.
Atheist- But the baby might be a pagan, or a atheist, or not baptized.
Christian- Babies can't really be pagan, nor atheists, for they have not thought about these issues. Also, evidence suggests that no one is "born an atheist", like you people love to say, but even four year olds living in China seem to have some concept about God, a unique creator of everything. And theism is not as widespread in China. Also, I do not believe that baptism is essential to salvation.
Atheist- But christians do...
Christian- Some christiasn do, but I do not, and you're arguing with me. It is intelectually dishonest to attack my views based on positions that I do not take.
Atheist- So babies won't go to hell?
Christian- Thats my position.
Atheist- Are you implying that can be good to babies to die before they're grown ups and can sin because then they would be able to go to hell?
Christian- No, but it is true that for a person is better not to born than to perish forever.
Atheist- Why don't you christians kill all babies then?
Christian- I'm sorry?
Atheist- Well, if it's not bad for babies to die, since they'll go to heaven, why don't you kill them and save them?
Christian- It is a sin to kill.
Atheist- So you'll let thousands of babies grow up just to become wicked, die and go to hell?
Christian- It would be their fault, not mine. Murdering others is a sin, and since I love God I will sin not. Scripture tells us not to attempt to "do evil that good may come", and I will not sin.
Atheist- Why?
Christian- This would be a great blasphemy against the sacrifice of Christ, a enormous sin and evil. I have not been saved to sin, but to teach and help others so that they might be saved to, by faith only, through Christ's grace only.
Atheist- So you're not sending thousands of babies into heaven because, doing that, you would go to Hell? Isn't it good and altruistic to abandon your own salvation so that others might be saved? Why are you christians so egotistical?

How would you respond to a question like this? I'm really clueless.
 
You did fine. He is now approaching nonsense in his reasoning. At this point, it's hard to take him seriously.

Atheist- So you're not sending thousands of babies into heaven because, doing that, you would go to Hell?

You already provided a good answer for this:
Murdering others is a sin, and since I love God I will sin not.

This:
Isn't it good and altruistic to abandon your own salvation so that others might be saved?
could be written:
Isn't it good...to sin...so that...XYZ?

...which you already answered.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

He is trying to twist you into saying that you are refraining from murder solely for your own good, which is not the case at all. Self is not the highest reason for the things we do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top