The Problem of Suicide
Offline When approaching existentialism and atheism, theists often contend that these are depressing ideas that will lead one to suicide.
BUT, I think it is logically proveable that all children should kill themslves and/or we should kill all children if we take Christianity to be true.
P1. Heaven is a great place.
P2. Hell is a terrible place.
P3. All kids go to heaven.
P4. Once reaching a certain, ambiguous age, children are accountable for their actions and may be sent to hell for being bad or disbelieving in God.
Conclusion: Since children have the possibility of going to hell after a certain age, we should either kill all children or tell them to commit suicide in order to ensure passage into heaven.
----
The ATHEIST has much more reason to live than the theist. This is all we got!
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
- Login to post comments
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I did not say that losing your job wasn't God's will. I didn't say the hurricanes or tsunami wasn't God's will. People will say those were both evil but were they really? New Orleans before had crime rates out of control, had living conditions in the 9th ward that would make many cringe. After Katrina, New Orleans has begun rebuilding and had a great opportunity to open the door to acceptance to racial and national issues and both of which were screwed beyond belief. Yes people died but that happens with or without a natural disaster. Death is nothing something that needs to be feared and because God called them at that time does not mean it was evil. Only looking at it from the human perspective would one call what happened evil.
I never said he didn't.
You cannot call Satan the agent of God but rather the opposite of God. This of course does not put Satan at the same level as God but undeniably he exists and works not to perform evil but effect the souls of men and women to pull them away from God. This is the action you see Satan doing against Job in the bible and it is the action you see Satan doing everyday with the forms of hatred we experience. Did God give Job grief? No, he simply allowed it to happen. Satan does not do God's bidding otherwise Satan would not exist. This is why he is called the deceiver.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
OK I'm with ya so far.
Ummmm that's not entirely correct.
Ephesians 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Yes you are granted the gift of faith to Jesus by God and this belief grants you salvation but there is NOTHING that will earn it the rest of the way. We do not work for salvation but rather do God's will as these "good works" and follow in the example of Jesus. Nothing we do after we accept Jesus will further our goal for salvation - it's already there.
Yes we strengthen our faith by actions (of course when done for God's glory, not yours, e.g. fasting) you speak but as James wrote, what you do is not suppose to increse your faith but show your faith:
James 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
I'm wondering why you speak this verse as if it's future tense as in after death. The "will be" speaks of is from future believers of Jesus who will come to believe in him, not by the act of baptism though.
Remember Jesus did not say he came to die for all sins except one, he came for all sins without exception, including that of the first man:
Matthew 1:21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
There are no exceptions with Jesus as he proved that with his own actions towards all who approached him. His love was for all and it was for all he died and it was for all sins to be forgiven when faith is achieved in Jesus. When will Jesus' sacrifice save? When faith is achieved from God's grace (which comes right before repentance). I agree with what you are saying but from the biblical standpoint, it goes further than that.
His work for salvation was complete because he died and rose. We can do nothing to finish the job as it's already done (John 3:16-18). We've got the re-established relationship to God through Jesus now, all we need is the faith to believe.
The last command, for baptism, is a call of fellowship and of recognizing Jesus through the same action that Jesus did when he began his ministry. It was to live in the faith with one another and when God gave the gift of faith to others, this is where baptism by the holy spirit occurs. This of course does not mean shoving it into anyone's face though.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Are you sure you want to stand by that statement in bold?
Since you brought up this section of Job - "The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your hands, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.".
Seems like Satan did what he was told to me.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Twisting it again. You have a real tallent for that.
Last I checked, God gave him permission to do what he wanted, he didn't tell him infect him with boils or kill his crops, have his family die by disease, so on. Satan didn't do any of those things from command of God.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Satan didn't hurt Job because God commanded him not to. Satan didn't kill Job in his second meeting with God because God told him not to.
What am I twisting again? Or are you just lying because you didn't read/don't understand your scripture?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Let's see, you said based on the argument of God does destructive things...
Yet did he? I just proved to you that God didn't tell Satan to kill his family with disease or his crops or destroy his lands. So did he?
So you changed your argument mid thought to be not that he did the destructive things based on God's commandment but since he didn't kill Job that was following God's word? You've got me confused now because I don't even understand what you are trying to debate. First he was doing as God told him to do because of the analogies to hurricanes and tsunamis and now it's Satan doing God's will by not killing him. Which is it...though I think I understand so perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt that you misunderstood when I said Satan doesn't do God's will because I was relating it to God's word. Is that it?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
It's both. Becaus God created Satan (a fact which you haven't denied) everything that Satan does should be credited to God. You're the one that said Satan does nothing God commands - I showed you where you were wrong in two instances. Satan asked God to "stretch out his hand" against Job. God gave Satan permission to do his stuff. This made Satan "God's hand". I also showed you that Satan obeyed God's limitations
I don't know why I'm arguing this. Satan, like God, is a fiction created by man to try to explain how things happened in the world around them. Man needed something to blame the bad stuff on and voila! Satan and the evil beings in other cultures showed up.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
OK first why do you keep pointing out God created Satan. So? Yes he did what's your point.
Second, because God created Satan, just as he created man, does not mean that God controls everything that Satan does. Saying everything that Satan does is credited to God is like me saying everything you've done should be credited to your father which is not the case because you are your own person.
Third, God was not the one who wished any evil upon Job. So how did you conclude that Satan was "God's hand". You've got way too much scientist and a real loss of understanding of theology.
Lastly, Satan obeying God's limitations shows respect to God. It would be the same as you showing respect to your father. By showing respect, if that implies that you always follow your fathers will, OK.
I'm actually wondering too since the thread was about suicide.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Heretics such as the Waldensians and Abigensians actaully considered suicide a sacrament fo exactly that reason.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
EASY SOLUTION:
Have someone else kill you. Then that person asks for forgiveness, and someone else kills him. The cycle goes on and on.
Reductio ad absurdum.
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Responses:
1. The way you frame your argument is kind of vague and unintelligible, so I’m going to rephrase it. This is how I understand it, and I want to get it right, so correct me if this is wrong.
“Catholics always baptize their children. Catholics baptize their children because only baptized children are ‘saved’ and have the ability to go to heaven provided they meet other conditions. Because Catholics always baptize their children, we do not need to consider the alternative possibility of not baptizing children. Because we do not consider this alternative posibility, it is not explicitly discussed in the Bible.” I only do this because I must make many assumptions based on the way you phrased your own statement. Rather than make the wrong assumptions, you need to clarify or assent to my interpretation of what you said. You seem to be consistent at being inconsistent. The statement you made creates implications that you believe no unbaptised children go to heaven, which is something you directly denied earlier. This is making for a very confusing debate. It could be that I’m just misunderstanding, but if I’m not, you’re contradicting yourself. Hopefully it is the former.
2. As stated earlier, it seems like you are really contradicting your earlier position that SOME unbaptized children can go to heaven, given his possible “mercy” for them (that we hope exists, but may not exist). If you wonder why I didn’t respond earlier, it’s because I am very confused. Are you fillibustering me? Are you trying to waste my time so that I won’t put my atheist hands to more productive work?
3. If it’s so self-evident, why would the Catholic church need to write an official church document on the issue?
4. I suppose my judgments are subjective, but I think your argument is utterly poor and fails. You claim it is not an important issue because Catholics or Christians baptize their children… BUT, addressing the issue of whether or not unbaptized children CAN have the POSSIBILITY of going to heaven is absolutely crucial for establishing justification for the act of baptism itself.
In other words, you simply are refusing to commit to an answer. Either baptism is an absolute condition of admittance into heaven or it is not. There is no middle ground. It would seem the most logically consistent position for a theist on this matter to argue that NO unbaptized children go to heaven. So not only is it important for god to explicitly state whether or not unbaptized children can go to heaven because we must console bereaved parents, but he should explicitly state it in order to give any meaning or importance to the ‘sacrament’ of baptism.
5. You have overlooked the possibility that some parents would not be able to have their children baptized before death.
A) Miscarriage.
B) Stillbirth
C) The parents live in a rural area and have no access to a holy man to perform baptism. The child dies before the baptism is performed.
NOW do you think it’s important? IT MOST DIFINITELY IS A NEED TO KNOW QUESTION.
All of the language of these documents is utterly vague. Saying that I hope something to be true does not further the debate at all. It is completely ambiguous, it’s an appeal to ignorance, and it is unacceptable in rational discussion. I say this because there are only two possibilities here, and you are refusing to discuss the rational implications of both possibilities. You say, “I hope possibility A is true,” and then you essentially stop the discussion there without even discussing the ramifications of possibility A… When I try to discuss the logical sequela of possibility A, you appeal to the fact that possibility B is true. Nonsense.
Either God saves SOME unbaptized children or he doesn’t. You are saying that you HOPE that he saves some unbaptized children. IF the possibility you hope for is true, then the concept of baptism is completely undermined. There is no reason for baptism if it is not an absolute condition for salvation. WHERE IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS ARGUMENT? I WANT IT.
Secondly, I discussed the other possibility. The other possibilities are that ALL unbaptized children go to hell (which is the only position that furthers the inclusion of baptism in this discussion), or ALL unbaptized children go to heaven. ANSWER ME, DO ANY OTHER POSSIBILITIES EXIST?
My whole point here is that bringing up baptism in this debate was pointless.
Still, your most promising possibility is that ALL unbaptized children go to hell. This is logically contradictory to the fact that God is proposed to be all-good and he cannot punish an innocent child for something it didn’t do.
Moreover, WHERE IS YOUR RESPONSE TO MY ARGUMENT THAT CHILDREN CANNOT BE PUNISHED FOR SINS OF THEIR PARENTS AND THAT SINS ARE NON-TRANSFERABLE? Haven’t seen it yet.
1. Hmmm. 1 is an option. Case closed. You need no supporting premises for your conclusion, so neither do I. Debating this way is tantamount to “I know you are but what am I.” You need reasons for your conclusions.
2. Here’s my reason: I’m talking about logical possibilities. It is fine to refute each of the logical possibilities with other logical arguments, but we have to know what the possibilities are first. Regardless, I am puzzled why you exclude number 1. If number 1 is not the actual truth, then any discussion of baptism was a waste of time. Why did you even bring baptism up?
Then let’s stop talking about baptism altogether. It’s a moot point to the original issue, which simply discusses the fact that AFTER ONE MEETS ALL SAID CONDITIONS FOR ADMISSION TO HEAVEN AS A CHILD, WE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO KILL THE CHILD BEFORE HE HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING TO HELL. Hence, whether or not the kid is baptised, let’s just baptise him for good measure, then kill him. Then he goes to heaven because he is innocent and before the ambiguous age of accountability for his actions.
Good. I am less afraid of you than I was previously.
Fear level is rising.
Ah. So no other souls will be produced after the second coming? What was the point of creating any new souls in the first place? If creating new souls is so great, why not continue the process after the second coming? What happens in heaven? Do we just sit around in the clouds all day and play harps and lyres? Fly around in swirls around God? Sing gospel hymns all day? MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IF CREATION OF NEW SOULS CEASES AT THE SECOND COMING, THEN THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF CREATING SOULS IN THE FIRST PLACE IS UNJUSTIFIED. What possible purpose could there be to create a finite number of souls, and then sit in a steady state glorifying your ego and having all your minions bow down before you in awe? It sounds pretty boring and silly to me.
[sarcasm]ALRIGHTY THEN.[/sarcasm]
1A. “Grace” is completely ambiguous nonsense. What do you mean specifically? Do not give me a definition with more vague terms. It needs to be explicitly defined.
1B. So now baptism IS important?
2A. So why get baptised in a state of grace? Because you have a better chance of going to heaven?
2B. How is one accepted by God outside the visible confines of the Church? Again, wading in total ambiguity. What are the exact conditions outside the visible confines of the church that would allow someone to go to heaven? Don’t know again? You’re dodging all the questions by creating a position that is unintelligible and impossible to understand.
Let me try a different tack.
My response to everything you just said: My God, Snarfwidgey, cannot be defined. I do not know what his properties are. He told me that your God does not exist. He provided no reasons for this, but I believe him on faith because faith is wonderful and glorious. He is right and you are wrong. He also says that you must bow before him in a state of scrumdiddleyumptiousness in order to be admitted to his celestial palace. I don’t know what scrumdiddleyumptiousness is, but you MAY or MAY not need it to get to his celestial palace. I hope everyone has scrumdiddleyumptiousness. For all those that do not have it, I hope that Snarfwidgey spares them from damnation through his property of quetzocwacko.
A, this state of Grace nonsense. I hope you have scrumdiddleyumptiousness to go to the celestial palace of Snarfwidgey. I can’t explain to you what scrumddleyumptiousness is, though.
How does a child attain a state of Grace? What are the conditional requirements to attain Grace? Only God knows?
So children without the property of “grace” are damned… If God is all-good, he would not create such nonsense terms as grace as a condition for admission to heaven for children. Let me only speculate on non-grace babies. Suppose a child is born out of wedlock and unbaptized.
A most important aspect of justice is that a person is punished is rewarded based on their own actions, not the actions of others. Your concept of grace completely undermines this point and states that a person should be punished or rewarded based on criteria that are independent of their own actions and volition. In other words, some children are predestined to go to hell. I find this abhorrent and unworthy of any concept of a perfect God. Yet, you claim the Bible says it is so. There is a very crucial problem with this way of thinking. EVERYTHING is subject to laws of logic. Even the Bible. Hence, we cannot look at something logically contradictory in the bible and say that since it is in the bible, the laws of logic are redefined. Logic is primary, especially if you are going to claim that God created logic. God would have to not violate the same laws of logic that he created. Children cannot be punished for things that are outside of their control and for which they have not made any volitional acts or choices that were in violation of a rule or law. The fact that you accept the eternal damnation of ANY child, in a state of grace or not, baptised or not, is morally abhorrent and not worthy of consideration after several thousand years of ethical philosophy and debate.
A logical proof with absolute and universal quantifiers that are accepted removes any conditionality. Hence, a handful of absolute facts cannot be dented by ANY conditions or teachings without creating logical contradictions. Look at the bible in context? Look at the “big picture”? No. If absolute statements are made in the bible, then “the big picture” will provide no exceptions and no conditions. Furthermore, consider the fact that the bible is strewn with all sorts of strange conditions after absolute statements have been made.
Thou shalt not kill, but kill in the following cases…. But then when Jesus comes, forget about those cases.
(Thou shalt not kill… But kill your son if he disobeys you in Leviticus… But then forget about that nasty stuff in Leviticus after Jesus comes along.) The logic of the bible insults our intelligence. The Bible cannot just redefine logic as an assumption that everything in the bible is true and logical.
I disagree entirely. If you love your kids, you want them to go to heaven. It is not worth the risk of letting them go to hell. Eternal life is much more important than anything in this life.
BUT, he also said that you can just believe in him and then you’re saved. Or Catholics believe you can just confess your sins and do your penance and you’re saved. So what about sin? I can do all the sin I want and then do a couple things that completely overturn all the sins I’ve done. Besides, any sin I commit on this planet will only be for a greater good. It’s okay for us to kill someone in self-defense, right? It’s okay to kill a terrorist so that he won’t kill a big mass of people, right? Killing your child and sacrificing yourself, even if you go to hell, is for the greater good! If you love your children you will kill them and spare them the possibility of damnation.
1. It’s not a matter of being more happy, first of all. Ignorance may be bliss, but it is no way to live your life. I would much rather know the truth and be sad than believe in a lie and be happy. It takes courage to question your beliefs. And once you do, it is a one way trip. There is no going back to irrationalism, and you’d better be prepared. Atheism implies responsibility. It implies that all we have is this life, not a life to pine for. This life is so much more important than pining for time that you will never have. Our children are so much more precious than a belief in their immortality would imply. How we leave this planet is much more important when you realize there is no heaven and no supernaturally imposed end of the world.
2. The problem is that you assume atheism makes one depressed. This is not true. Perhaps it is a transient phase, but many atheists live healthy and fulfilling lives. How is this?
"Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it comes." - - Epictetus
"If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment." - - Marcus Aurelius
As an atheist, I pull from authors and thinkers from around the world. I value a scant amount of Christian literature, but there is so much more out there! Read! Compare the literature of the world to the teachings of Jesus! Experience what is out there, rather than assuming Christianity has all the answers!
The Stoic quotes I posted are maxims I live my life by. There are many cold, hard truths about the world. I could choose to lie to myself, allow myself to be deluded, and allow myself not to question my assumptions because these things make me happy. But I want my happiness to be justified. I want the things that make me happy to be real and not imaginary. If I love a woman and she says she loves me back, I want it to be true. I don’t want her to be lying to me so that she can divorce me later and steal my possessions. A doctor could drug you, make you stare at a wall, and for all intents and purposes, you would be extremely happy doped up on drugs. But is that anyway to live your life? Heavens no!
As an atheist, living life authentically and with justified truth is a happiness all on its own. Sitting back and staring at the void is one of the most profoundly inspiring moments of an atheist’s life. Once you see the void, you ask yourself the question, “Now what?” And the journey has only begun. My thirst for knowledge, my compassion for humanity, and my zest for life have grown exponentially greater as an atheist than when I ever was a Catholic. Nay, steadfast, you only assume you are happier as a Catholic. The alternative is much better than you can imagine now. The path to truth is a slow one. Changing beliefs does not happen overnight.
I liken this transformation to a large boulder sitting in a mountain stream. Slowly, day by day, year by year, the boulder is chipped by smaller rocks flowing down the stream. Slowly it erodes into nothingness. If nothing else, my words are like those small rocks chipping away slowly at your own rock of faith. It is my hope that you allow yourself to read, discover, and actively question your own faith. For that will provide more pebbles to erode your rock of faith than I ever could.
What, praytell, is the “Theology of the Body”?
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Yup, they tried that too.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Now that's what I call a Ponzi scheme.
There are no theists on operating tables.
You were the one who insisted on "yes, no or I don't know" answers to questions that are essentially quantitative.
No. No, just answering the questions you pose.
They can go to heaven. It is possible that all of them do.
Like I said earlier: either baptised and in a state of grace or unbaptised and outside the confines of the visible church.
God has already answered that: they can.
Why do you keep throwing out these incorrect details? No 'holy man' is needed. Anyone can baptise.
Don't equivocate. Of course it's an important answer. That doesn't imply that it is a need to know answer.
You keep saying either all or none, but it's really a question of quantity. Let B be the number of baptised children in a state of grace and U be the number of unbaptised then the number of children going to heaven is:
B = 100%
0 < U <= 100%
He does save some. We hope that he saves all.
Not really. I know that he saves some. What I hope is that specific children are saved and also that all children are saved. Both of these hopes are consistant with the knowledge that he saves at least some unbaptised children.
Baptism is preferable to unbaptism because "everyone is saved unless they choose not to be" is preferable than "more than none is saved."
Don't equivocate. Sins are non-transferable but that doesn't imply that the punishment for sin falls does not fall upon children. For example, the children of a mother who commits infanticide are not guilty of killing, but still they are killed. Thus the child does not inherit the sin, but they do reap the consequences. The same applies to Adam's sin through which sin entered the world. Only Adam is guilty of his sin, but each of us is mortal and hell-bent because of it.
You said that killing a young child automaticaly got it into heaven. I corrected you which is why baptism was invoked.
Conclusion actualy.
No, Christians are obligated NOT to kill innocent children.
Why? Seems to me that the souls that are created can choose to know and love him and spend eternity with him in paradise.
Then I respond: I bring you good news! Step out of the darkness and into the light. For we know a God who revealed himself to us, not in undefinable jargon but in the flesh. He became a man and walked among us. By knowing the person of Jesus Christ you will know God the Father. Forget about cyphers and scrumdiddlyumptiousness, call upon the Lord and he will save you.
All but the most disordered persons know if they have chosen to love sin or God.
No, I do not make that claim. On the contrary Catholics do not believe in predestination to hell.
Correct.
Although I would say that God is logic because Jesus is truth.
They can, consider again the case of the mother who commits infanticide. Her children pay the price for her sins.
I only accept it as a logical possibility. As an actual possibility I fight against it tooth and nail. I believe protecting children is moraly superior to paying lipservice to their peaceful death.
If nothing else, I hope that I have demonstrated that your grasp of Christian obligations are tenuous at best. Here's a brain teaser for you: What is the greatest commandment? (Hint: if it's not "keep children out of hell" then your argument fails because it falsifies your claim about what is most important in Christianity.)
Your priorities are damnably wrong. God is more important than anything. Your fetishistic obsession with eternal life is a mortal sin called "idolatry" Jesus did not kill people into heaven and neither should you.
Such a murder would not be a mortal sin and you would remain in a state of grace since you did not kill of your own free will. (The attacker "forced you" to defend yourself.) Thus Christians can defend themselves.
Additionaly, people in authority have a grave duty to offer that protection even at the cost of their own lives. So a sergent could risk (and lose) the lives of his men and even innocent bystanders all without comitting a mortal sin. Thus Christians can fight terrorists and (reluctantly) accept collateral damage.
We may never do evil to achieve a good end. Such an act is always disordered, and almost without exception meets two of the three conditions for mortal sin (free will and full knowlege.) The final condition, grave issue, is covered by the gravity of the sin of murder. Thus Christians can not kill children into heaven and your argument fails.
If you love your children more than God then you have broken the first commandment and broken with Catholic teaching. Whenever you place anything above your Love of God your morality becomes twisted and your actions evil. In this instance your love is perverted since you love something more than God. Your perverted love manifests itself by killing the objects of your love. Sick sick sick.
In any case, Catholics believe that the created world is good so we're above the gnostic material hatred you're describing.
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. --Mother Teresa.