Problem with Christianity and Islam?
(since this came up elsewhere, I thought I'd just run it by you folks)
Going by basic Christian and Islamic tenets:
As an aside, in a secular context, killing infants tend to be considered atrocious, and is free from such reasoning. Of course. Any ordinary person would think so, I hope.
[quote=William Lane Craig]
But why take the lives of innocent children?
[...]
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
[/quote]
Going by basic Christian and Islamic tenets:
- killing an infant secures the infant safe passage to heaven and eternal bliss with God
- there are real-life examples where this reasoning has been employed, and infants have been killed
- some may reason by "to be on the safe side" (cf Pascal's Wager) killing an infant is in the interest of the infant
- while going by said tenets, the reasoning itself is sound, and the killer has accomplished the goal
- those tenets ought then be questioned
As an aside, in a secular context, killing infants tend to be considered atrocious, and is free from such reasoning. Of course. Any ordinary person would think so, I hope.
- ‘He had to die,’ accused mother tells police in son’s killing
- Coverage of the Kimberly Lucas case
- Pastor's wife dressed her three daughters in white 'before stabbing two so they could meet Jesus for the end of the world'
- Mom kills son believing boy would be better off in heaven
[quote=William Lane Craig]
But why take the lives of innocent children?
[...]
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
[/quote]
- Source: Slaughter of the Canaanites (Reasonable Faith; Aug 2007)
Comments (24)
Very basic... Heaven (bliss with God), hell, innocent children, eternal souls, ...
Hinduism (or some flavors thereof) is different if memory serves.
I lean towards the views of Peter Singer. Infanticide, despite its scary-sounding verbage, is probably not morally problematic because infants aren't even capable of futural thoughts or even are conscious. To say that it is morally wrong to take the life of a young infant is, in my opinion, probably unfounded equivocation.
So if I whipped out a hammer and brained your baby to death in front of you, you would have serious difficulty saying my actions were morally wrong?
Seriously?
[quote=Christianity (Wikipedia article)]The creeds further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, where he reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, and that he will return to judge the living and the dead and grant eternal life to his followers.[/quote]
[quote=Islam (Wikipedia article)]Muslims view heaven as a place of joy and bliss, with Qur?anic references describing its features and the physical pleasures to come.[/quote]
As an aside, ISIS have displaced 100,000s of children. :(
The examples in the opening post are not imaginary deaths.
Anyway, children are easy victims.
Going by the tenets, the argument extends somewhat beyond infant age.
Might go by some notion of innocence, or mortal sin or other passage to hell.
(It all seems rather arbitrary in any case.)
There's a simple question involved, going by said faiths:
If an innocent child is killed, then will they go to heaven?
As per above:
Quoting jorndoe
... of which there are examples.
Note, though, it's not me calling it "heaven". It's part of the faith system. How much sense does it make?
It's not about definitions, but about what people believe.
In case you answer "yes" to the question, you've affirmed the killer's goal.
I do not.
Consequences of breaching "permissible" extends to the killer alone in this case (surely not the infant).
Consequences to the infant (if the answer is "yes") is heaven and eternal bliss with God.
On a satirical note, here's The Onion on the topic: God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
EVEN if you believed that it was permissible to kill an infant to gain the benefits of heaven for the victim, you would still be held responsible for the infant's(s') death and would likely be punished severely.
It is a fraud perpetrated on believers to suggest that atrocities in this world will be rewarded in the next. Suicide bombers, for instance, who have been brainwashed to think that heavenly bliss awaits them after they walk into a food market and kill themselves and many other people, are hideous victims of their faith rather than noble torch bearers.
Well first of all I wouldn't have children to begin with. Second, it is immoral from the perspective of those who have children. But infanticide cannot harm the infant, only those who have infants.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Right.
And so, going by such faiths, presumably the killer ends up down below, and the infant up high.
Or something.
Quoting Bitter Crank
:D
As an aside, euthanasia has come up in the public in recent years.
The context here is mostly the "right to die" and "assisted suicide" movements.
These two sentences need to be separated. Because they are juxtaposed, it is easy for anybody other than a very careful reader to infer that Peter Singer thinks there is no moral problem with infanticide. That would be an incorrect inference. It is darthbarracuda that has no problem with infanticide.
There's a fairly simple observation involved.
Remove the Christianity and Islam part, and go by common religious beliefs, like taught in Sunday school and madrasas, for example.
1. It's uncontroversial among such believers that an infant (or other innocent child) that dies, goes to heaven, to be with God. I'd say this often enough includes accredited pastors and imams and such, although "heaven", "God", "innocent", etc, can be subject to all manner of ideation and definitions.
2. If an infant is killed, then the killer has committed a crime, both by various religious and secular rules. Those entertaining faith as per above — the killer in particular — may believe the killer can still be "saved", others may believe they cannot and don't care (or perhaps believe they're damned in any case), yet others may believe something else, who knows.
As per such faith, killing an infant will secure the infant's entrance into heaven, to be with God. Believers, be they (would-be) killers or not, commonly share 1 above.
That does not mean the act of killing is good or anything — it goes against other rules — yet, the repercussions extend just to the killer, not the victim.
It's not so much about consequentialism, as it is about believed consequences of an infant's (or other innocent child's) death. Neither is it about throwing Abrahamic religions in the bin. It's about analyzing real-life beliefs, irrespective of any (perceived) controversy.
Anyway, have a good weekend, and holidays.
The world's most famous perpetrators of infanticide were Chinese atheists under communist rule. Apparently buckets of water were kept at the bedsides of delivering women for the purpose of dunking female infants to their deaths.
Despite the reasoning you point out, neither Christians nor Muslims are particularly known for infanticide.
Sometimes it's more informative to analyze "real-life" actions versus "real-life" beliefs.