Your duty to kill those guaranteed to go to Heaven

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? There is a Gold Heaven, a Platinum Heaven, and a Diamond Heaven? Is that in the Bible somewhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest I don't know. I'm only telling you that I was taught(as a catholic) that the greatness of your reward in heavan depends on how well you live your life on earth. Conversely, the level of punishment in hell is also dependent on how wicked of a life you lead.

If what I was taught is true, the OP and SilentA can no longer make any valid moral conclusions. The situation is very well be akin to passing up a small EV bet today in order to make a larger EV bet tommorrow. You need a whole lot more information to solve that problem and that information is just not available. How does one accurately measure and assign a value to the different levels of eternal reward and eternal punishment? How does one determine the probability that a specific innocent is going to go bad? How does one determine the range of probabilities of a specific innocent going bad and know that range accurately coincides with the different levels of eternal damnation that "innocent" may recieve?

It's pointless for men to debate wether we have a moral obligation to kill and innocent in order to guarantee they will go to heaven. Its for God to decide that. On this point we can let this thread die the death it deserves.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Right but if what you were taught is true then the common understanding of Heaven as Infinitely +EV is silly and wrong and the Pascal's Wager folks are even MORE retarded. Lets hope, for entertainments sake, that you are incorrect.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the answer is no, there are NOT different heavens, there are NOT different rewards, but there are several different flowery metaphors that different people use to describe eternal salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Vhawk,

They way it was described to me is that in heaven people experience the maximum amount of joy they can possibly experience. However the "maximum" of someone who lead a very holy life and achieved a higher reward in heaven is much higher than the "maxium" of someone who got in by the skin of thier teeth.

Stu

[Brad1970]

Stu's on the right track...Different people get different rewards. Some get 1 crown while others get all of them. Some will get none. How many do you think Billy Graham will get? How many will the guy that accepts Christ on his deathbed get?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the answer is no, there are NOT different heavens, there are NOT different rewards, but there are several different flowery metaphors that different people use to describe eternal salvation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Vhawk,

They way it was described to me is that in heaven people experience the maximum amount of joy they can possibly experience. However the "maximum" of someone who lead a very holy life and achieved a higher reward in heaven is much higher than the "maxium" of someone who got in by the skin of thier teeth.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what difference does it make? There isn't any jealousy or pain or suffering, right? The absolute absence of suffering = infinite joy, IMO. In order for one reward to be "better" there must be some way in which the other rewards are imperfect or insufficient.

Think of it like drug tolerance. It would take a very small amount of morphine to ease all of my pain, because I've never been on any morphine in my life and have no tolerance. For a person with cancer, it would require a whole lot more morphine to achieve that same pain-relief. Ignoring side-effects, why is their morphine treatment better than mine? Because they get more?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it like drug tolerance. It would take a very small amount of morphine to ease all of my pain, because I've never been on any morphine in my life and have no tolerance. For a person with cancer, it would require a whole lot more morphine to achieve that same pain-relief. Ignoring side-effects, why is their morphine treatment better than mine? Because they get more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bad analogy. A better analogy is a drinking glass filled to the brim with water compared to a pitcher filled to the brim with water. Both are in a state of "fullness" but one object contains more than the other. In heaven one soul may have a greater capacity to experience joy than another but both souls are experiencing the maxium amount of joy they are capable of experiencing. Since both souls experience this joy for an eternity (i.e. what is essentially an infinite amount of time) then the amount of joy each soul experiences is infinite. I'm sure you are aware any positive value multiplied by infinity = infinity.

Stu

[Brad1970]

Nobody said one reward was better or worse than the next...you just get more or less of them depending on how you use your spiritual gifts while on earth.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody said one reward was better or worse than the next...you just get more or less of them depending on how you use your spiritual gifts while on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, Stu, Brad liked my analogy. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Ok, if neither is better or worse then why would anyone care which one they got? They wouldn't. And thus you cannot use this to refute the OP, since this would never enter into the equation.

To Stu,

Its not really like your example, its a lot more like mine. Rather than a cup or a pitcher, try my stomach versus someone with a much larger stomach. Both are full, but his contains more food. So what? In your example, it is implied that that extra absolute amount of water is useful for something. But in Heaven, it is manifestly NOT useful for anything, else the cup would suffer.

[Brad1970]

Ummm..."liked" might not be the correct word...thought it was cornball is better. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

*sigh heavily*

Were you ever in the Boy Scouts?

If so, did you earn merit badges?

Did they give you a merit badge in woodcarving when you were actually doing archery?

Its kinda the same way with heavenly crowns. Pardon the crude analogy but since you missed it the first time....

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the OP is pretty obvious. You cannot go around killing people because you can never be sure what they really believe. They may say they believe in Jesus but they could be lying. By killing them you have denied them a chance to truly believe. The only person you can be sure believes is yourself and I don't know what the majority of Christians now believe about suicide. (ie If the person believes does he get into heaven)

Also I think the aborted babies go to heaven is a very very modern idea. Historically most people have thought they go to hell, atleast Catholics and probably more. Christians decided this was logically unfair so they changed their view. In the future they will most likely change their view on hell all together.

Saying Bunny is not a Christian seems horribly un-christian to me. He says he believes in Jesus, who really cares about anything else? I don't think Jesus would.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, babies/children go to heaven. Jesus said so mulitple times in the New Testament. That's not a 'modern' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be what you believe but to say it as a fact is very dishonest. The Pope is unsure and only says that their is hope to believe that they get into heaven. Maybe you should email him if it is so obvious [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure. I'll put the Word of God against the Pope any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As I have stated before in this thread...I have my own convictions about Catholics that I will not post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want me to believe that in the Bible Jesus says very clearly that babies go to heaven and the Pope just missed it? I am pretty sure that dude has read the Bible, maybe even twice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

It makes no sense especially since the Pope obviously WANTS to agree with you. Maybe you are not as good of a Bible scholar as you seem to think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea why you would think the Pope would WANT to agree with this. It makes a lot more sense that the Pope would prefer everyone to be born hopelessly sinful.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that their is reason to hope that babies can go to heaven. The Pope doesn't want to pray to a god that punishes babies for eternity any more than you do.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the OP is pretty obvious. You cannot go around killing people because you can never be sure what they really believe. They may say they believe in Jesus but they could be lying. By killing them you have denied them a chance to truly believe. The only person you can be sure believes is yourself and I don't know what the majority of Christians now believe about suicide. (ie If the person believes does he get into heaven)

Also I think the aborted babies go to heaven is a very very modern idea. Historically most people have thought they go to hell, atleast Catholics and probably more. Christians decided this was logically unfair so they changed their view. In the future they will most likely change their view on hell all together.

Saying Bunny is not a Christian seems horribly un-christian to me. He says he believes in Jesus, who really cares about anything else? I don't think Jesus would.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, babies/children go to heaven. Jesus said so mulitple times in the New Testament. That's not a 'modern' idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

This might be what you believe but to say it as a fact is very dishonest. The Pope is unsure and only says that their is hope to believe that they get into heaven. Maybe you should email him if it is so obvious [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very sure. I'll put the Word of God against the Pope any day of the week and twice on Sunday. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

As I have stated before in this thread...I have my own convictions about Catholics that I will not post here.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you want me to believe that in the Bible Jesus says very clearly that babies go to heaven and the Pope just missed it? I am pretty sure that dude has read the Bible, maybe even twice [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

It makes no sense especially since the Pope obviously WANTS to agree with you. Maybe you are not as good of a Bible scholar as you seem to think?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are multiple references from Jesus in the NT. Do I need to look them up for you or do you know how to use Google??

[/ QUOTE ]

I want you to explain how it can be so obvious to you yet a subject of debate for the Catholics for 1000 years. Don't you think that is a bit strange? Please give me some actual Bible quotes if you can find any. Thank you.

Think about it from my point of view. I have no idea what Jesus said about this. So one guy (you) tells me its obvious and babies go to heaven. Then there is the Pope who says that he is not sure (but wants to think the same thing you do) and one of his major jobs is to interpret the Bible. The Pope must be really dumb, or lying for some reason or you have made a mistake. Am i crazy for thinking maybe you made a mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here:

Matt 18: 2-6
Matt 19: 13-15
Mark 10: 13-16
Luke 18: 15-16

Read it for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me it looks like Jesus was praising kids because they believe in him so easily.

"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."

The kids he is talking seem to be able to speak and understand. I don't see anything about aborted kids or babies who cannot yet recieve the kingdom of god.

You might be right but I it seems to me that the passages are vague enough so that a resonable person can have a different view. The Bible isn't a math book.

Also he seems to speak very figuratively. He said on one of those sites that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. You can't believe that he really ment that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

He meant ALL children until they are at an intellectual age to be able to understand right from wrong. NOTE: I did not put a chronological age to that statement. Neither does the Bible.

And you think those passages are vague??

Concerning your last paragraph, yes I believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you got 10 million dollars somehow you would give it all away? Those passages are vague. I wanted somthing like "do not worry about babies that die before they accept me, they get into heaven."

I don't know where you got that he ment all children until they can know the difference from right and wrong. Did you just make that up? We are also reading it in english and don't know what word they used in the original text, children might be the closest thing in english but mean something slightly different in the original. I really don't care what you or the Pope think on this issue, I just wish you could say that the Bible is not 100% clear it.

I guess this is why you guys have had so many splits and fights over what the Bible says. People can't admit that they might be wrong.