Newborn dilemma.

[T00ts]

They might believe that, but, assuming they didn't, assuming that they thought they would be going to hell for their actions, but that their actions would guarantee these newborns had no chance to go to hell, how would you argue against that position?

There is no argument against it. Can anyone condone murder? It's the argument of Satan, the master of all lies and deception. The biggest decision in this life, in fact the only one, is to believe the Gospel or not. It's the biggest battle each individual fights, or doesn't.  Unlike JOG I do not believe that we are born with sin, therefore babies and young children are pure. Other than that it is not my place to judge another so if someone is determined to commit murder according to their own rationale it is in God's hands.

[johnofgwent]

This hypothetical is almost certainly not an original one, but I haven't seen it expressed clearly, so I'll word it as best I can.

There are 3 statements I want to use as a groundwork for the thread -
1 - God exists.
2 - God passes judgement after death, the "good" go to heaven, the "wicked" go to hell.
3 - A newborn child is "good"

Based on the acceptance of these 3 statements, it would would it not be a moral good to murder a child at the moment of their birth?

This would guarantee that the newborn would go to heaven, and spend eternity in gods presence etc.

A single person could murder many newborns with ease, and while they will almost certainly be condemning themselves to hell, they may accept their damnation as a price worth paying, in order to guarantee that many others are spared the possible fate of hell.

Now I assume most decent people will find the idea awful, and not at all right, which means one (or more) of the three statements above are wrong. If so, which?

Its been a while since I bothered with Christian fantasy, but as I understand it, all humans carry the taint of original sin and so even the stillborn are going to hell. I'm sure Dante's original Inferno has a sublevel for them, and I KNOW the rewrite of it has one, near the fields reserved for the virtous pagans who have never had the opportunity to reject god and therefore cannot be punished as harshly as those who have.


And I'm sure killing the newborn counts as depriving god of the pleasure of torturing them with disease plague and locusts etc as they grow, so you get a special front row seat in level 665...

[Nalaar]

On the basis of that I guess it could be argued that someone with the plan to kill newborns for their own good could well believe that repentance will work later, after all their intentions are worthy right?

They might believe that, but, assuming they didn't, assuming that they thought they would be going to hell for their actions, but that their actions would guarantee these newborns had no chance to go to hell, how would you argue against that position?

[T00ts]

For me all 3 are right. There is a God, murderers are evil, babies are good. So where does that leave us? I guess it depends on the murderer's understanding of the 'penalty' that he risks.

Sorry if this does not seem quite relevant but it brings to mind something that I was studying only a few days ago which some might find worth a thought. That is that we are not simply judged on our actions/beliefs but on the level of our willingness to accept God's and Jesus Christ's laws and their forgiveness, our efforts to repent and be governed by the laws that govern us and everything around us. We can never be 'perfect' after all we are only human and the grace of God makes up for our failings as long as we have tried our best.

On the basis of that I guess it could be argued that someone with the plan to kill newborns for their own good could well believe that repentance will work later, after all their intentions are worthy right?. There is one fault of course and that is that God would not be taken in, but even greater than that in God's eyes, would possibly be the the denial of the child's chance to make the free will choices made during life. That is a very heavy sin. After all that was the cause of the great battle between us and Satan's followers, for they didn't want choice to feature on earth at all. My belief is that we will all be judged and allocated our places in Eternity accordingly ('In my Father's house are many mansions'), so for me we will not all go simply to one state of heaven/glory with outer darkness left for those who not only deny God but don't want His forgiveness. For those who change their minds between life and judgement there will be other places, all glorious of course but perhaps not quite as glorious. I found it an interesting concept.

[papasmurf]

Based on the acceptance of these 3 statements, it would would it not be a moral good to murder a child at the moment of their birth?

I can think of plenty of people if that had happened the World would be a better place.

[Nalaar]

This hypothetical is almost certainly not an original one, but I haven't seen it expressed clearly, so I'll word it as best I can.

There are 3 statements I want to use as a groundwork for the thread -
1 - God exists.
2 - God passes judgement after death, the "good" go to heaven, the "wicked" go to hell.
3 - A newborn child is "good"

Based on the acceptance of these 3 statements, it would would it not be a moral good to murder a child at the moment of their birth?

This would guarantee that the newborn would go to heaven, and spend eternity in gods presence etc.

A single person could murder many newborns with ease, and while they will almost certainly be condemning themselves to hell, they may accept their damnation as a price worth paying, in order to guarantee that many others are spared the possible fate of hell.

Now I assume most decent people will find the idea awful, and not at all right, which means one (or more) of the three statements above are wrong. If so, which?