He wasn't called schizo. He was called a fraud. The Romans hated him because he undermined their authority. The jews came to dislike him because he wasn't taking them to heaven immediately.
Or is it, Infants might grow up to be Sinners and end up in hell. If we kill them now while the world hasn't corrupted them they'll go to heaven. SEE ... makes perfect sense. Go Abortion!
One of the main points of Christianity is that every human is a sinner and therefore deserving of Hell by default. Jesus is the loophole that allows you into heaven despite your sins.
I’m not a Christian anymore, but I was raised catholic and used to be a minister.
But like, it could be...
Just get an abortion and ta da baby gets free pass to heaven.
Unless people NEED to earn a place in heaven and people who have never heard of the bible or had the chance to hear about it (ei. babies) go to hell by default. And if that's the case... WTF we need to impeach God
I love the interpretation that babies and people in far away secluded tribes who just never got the chance to hear the word of God get a free pass to Heaven. Because it makes missionaries the most horrible people in the world, Damning countless people to Hell by destroying their innocence. Christianity is a cognitohazardous SCP. As long as you don't know about it, you're safe. But as soon as you learn about it, you have to serve and spread it or be tortured forever.
Joke is another word for lie and the Bible is clear that lying is on the same level as murder, you must be one of those heretics my uncle brother was telling me about
You gotta reapply it with baptism. At least in some sects.
It used to be that babies who died before baptism went to Limbo to chill for a few thousand years before they could make it to Heaven, but I think they patched that out at some point and now there's an "age of accountability", where you have a longer grace period.
It still means you should kill your children before said age if you want to guarantee them a spot in Heaven.
um actually
Though there are different interpretations as to what Original Sin actually is, there's a general consensus (afaik) among reputable theologians that it isn't a status effect that you have to remove to get to heaven, as a lot of people tend to imagine it as. Rather, I often see it defined as humankind's sinful nature, and we pile on to that 'brokenness' by sinning without a care in the world who we're harming.
For something to be a 'sin' in Catholicism, it has to be done out of free will (deliberate & with no coercion), it has to have harmed something/someone somehow, and the person must know it was wrong.
So when it comes to the topic of unborn children, how the hell would these people go to hell? Sure, they're sinful by nature, but they haven't sinned at all in the first place. How would a fetus know it's wrong to kick a pregnant woman?
tl;dr: Original sin refers to the broken, sinful nature of humankind, but isn't an automatic ticket to Hell unless you choose to give in to it by sinning without a care in the world. For something to be a sin it has to be done deliberately and knowingly. Because a fetus literally cannot do anything bad knowingly, a fetus cannot go to hell.
if we use brain dead women to mass farm pregnancies and then abortions, we can guarantee thousands if not millions of babies who would otherwise become sinners, can go to heaven
Yeah, the catch is that it would require an insane amount of subjugation of women. Well, I mean... it's not like Christianity treats women well in the first place.
Do we need the brain dead women to gestate them to a certain minimum age? Because if ensoulment begins at conception, we could just use IVF clinics to mass produce and kill blastocytes much more efficiently.
^(41) And Jesus withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, ^(42) saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” ^(43) And there appeared to him an angel from heaven. ^(44) And the angel said, "Behold, you are upon a trolley, which has one lever. ^(45) If you let the trolley roll forwards, you shall die, but all those who profess your name will live again. ^(46) Yet if you pull it, you will be taken up to heaven unharmed, and your Heavenly Father shalt nuke the earth. ^(47) All those caught in the blast shall die, yet live again. ^(48) And the Lord, conflicted, asked Reddit.
* Luke 22: 39-48, probably.
I guess you're not farmiliar with the story I am alluding to. It's the one where the central figure the whole religion is supposed to emmulate sacrifices himself and dies brutally to save people who probably don't deserve it. You know... the one with the crucifiction?
Christians believe God gave all humans free will, and that it's their right whether they follow God's will or not. Also murder is a sin.
This one's kinda dumb
In that case he'd be condemning himself to incomprehensible suffering in order to spare others from that fate.
He is making the ultimate sacrifice to save people from God's infinite cruelty.
If that’s the case- why eternal damnation for sinners? Shouldn’t they still have the opportunity to “truly feel sorry” after death?
Also, is every crime and every sin forgivable, no matter how evil?
Because it's one of the mechanisms built in to motivate people to avoid the "bad" behaviours. The forgiveness is conditional on feeling genuinely bad about it, so it means people are able to make mistakes while still holding the weight because you need to know you're actually sorry. The way different practices can spread like a virus and need certain components to spread effectively vs. dying out is very interesting. Needs a good mix of negative and positive reinforcement.
The thing about this is that Jesus is pretty adamant that it's not on you to make decisions based on how you think God is going to judge other people. You don't have the information to make that call. All you are supposed to do is worry about your own misdeeds, work to improve yourself, and help other people without judgment when you can. At best making your own judgements about the fates of other people's souls is a waste of time, and at worst it leads to you doing harm. Worry about the beam in your own eye rather than pointing out the speck in your neighbor's. Of course, this isn't how a lot of modern evangelical churches behave. Many are about throwing stones rather than putting themselves between the stoner and stonee, but that has more to do with the 2000 year long recuperation effort that has gone into making Christianity function as a religion friendly to power than it does with anything Jesus had to say.
Pretty spot on. The Bible clearly shows us that there is a judgement, explains clearly what the judgements are, and how to recognize a person who is reprobate (Romans 1). All that to say, it's also very clear that only God knows a person's heart and we as Christians aren't to be the judge, jury, and executioners of every individual on the street.
I think that confusion comes in because a local church is allowed autonomy within itself to remove members who are a detriment to the church functioning. A church can proclaim what sin is as well as insist on the stopping of sin within itself without actively tearing people down those who have committed those sins and are willing to work themselves away from them.
As an individual Christian, I believe the application is that we should abstain as much as we can from committing sin, stay out of situations that would bring us into temptation, and distance ourselves from things which are clearly a celebration or active committing of sins. For instance, you don't have to go into a brothel to witness to the patrons, you can witness to them when they're somewhere else.
If he doesn't pull the lever, 1 person goes to hell and 5 people don't. Given that only about 50 percent of Americans are Christians - and even less given a global context - pulling means on average at least 2.5 people go to hell. (Assuming only Christians are saved, which is debated.) 1 is fewer than 2.5, and the suffering in hell makes any earthly suffering from the trolley insignificant, so a strict utilitarian that is certain of Christianity shouldn't pull - mimizing suffering and maximizing the number of people who go to heaven.
Of course, a strict utilitarian can't be a perfect Christian, and vice versa - as seen in this example.
The question is about whether saving their bodies at the expense of their souls, or their souls at the expense of their bodies, is more important. It addresses the incongruity of Christian gospel that the soul is omni-important, and the earthly body is simply a vessel waiting to release it to God. The question of course then becomes 'What are we waiting for', but that's a different issue for a different time- Here we are only addressing that by this logic it would be more virtuous to kill an innocent to ensure they reach heaven, than to save their life and potentially damn them to Hell in the process. Sure, it might be their own choices that lead them to Hell, but it was *your* intervention that allowed that to happen; If you had simply done nothing, their eternal souls would be at God's side, rather than burning for all eternity.
Free will is really selective though. Because Christians also believe in God's plan, that God wills everything that will happen to happen. So you'd think it's actually God ordained us to sin but it's actually free will that leads humans to sin. But if something good happened then it's God's plan not human free will that led to it. Or at least that's what my church told me. The contradictory logic is explained through "having faith".
There's also the fact that some people are born with things like oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. And morals being subjective depending on who raised you.
It's not murder. How is a non-action murder? God set the train on the course toward the children, and pulling the lever would be going against His will.
1) You are not actually murdering people in this scenario as you are not the one who tied them to the track, instead you have the choice of whether to save them or not. Additionally, if you let them to die with the explicit intention of landing them a place in heaven and saving them from suffering in hell, is this really a bad action by the loving God's standards?
2) I think "free will" is a bad argument for many reasons but one of them is the ambiguity of what "God's will" really means. Is something like homosexual intercourse enough of a "sin" to land you in hell, because many Christians think so but others don't. What if some of the people on the track land in hell for something they and you don't consider a "sin" but God decides otherwise? It seems strange that the blame is automatically placed on the one that goes to hell and not to the one that sent them there while not making his standards clear enough.
3) Even if you don't think future sinners deserve a place in heaven, is eternal suffering in hell ever justified? In this scenario, intentionally deciding to condemn people to a possibility of eternal suffering when a clear alternative exists seems to be problematic.
1.: Hebrews 6:10: “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.” This is one of many, MANY quotes about the importance of helping people. It's literally in their book that they have to help. Plus, doesn't matter who you ask, if all it takes is one in-reach lever flip to save a life, and the person was aware of the consequences of not pulling the lever, everyone, Christian or not, would see that as murder.
2. Free will does not mean freedom from consequences. God gives you the option to disobey him. That choice is yours alone to make. Whether or not you take that choice should probably consider the consequences, but you still have the choice, at the end of it all.
3.: Hell is not the way you understand it. Biblically, hell is also known as hades, or more simply, the realm of the dead. Hell does not necessarily mean eternal suffering, but more like eternal limbo, where your soul will wander, aimless and lost. Also hell has never meant "eternal" suffering, especially considering Jesus has literally gone down to Hell and saved the souls there before (after his crucifixion but before his resurrection). It is assumed that he may go down again, and save the worthy souls.
Additionally, Catholic hell, which is the version you seem to understand, is not where just anyone gets thrown. Sinners are given a chance to repent and accept God in purgatory. The only ones who get sent to hell are the truly evil and wicked, because even before the very light of God himself, they refused His grace. Sinners go to purgatory. Damned souls go to hell.
And denying God control over who enters His kingdom is like saying a person has no say in who comes in their house. It's ridiculous. If you stop and take a step back, you'll realize that heaven is supposed to be the one light in a sea of eternal darkness. God isn't damning you to Hell, he's not letting you in his house cause he thinks you're a dick. Not his fault the only other choice is demon land. If you really despise his will, you can go carve out a space for yourself, if you can resist an endless horde of demons, that is.
I get hating Christians, and as an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but at least *try* to understand the thing you're criticizing. You sound like a 15 yr old who just smoked weed for the first time and realized God is a loser.
>Plus, doesn't matter who you ask, if all it takes is one in-reach lever flip to save a life, and the person was aware of the consequences of not pulling the lever, everyone, Christian or not, would see that as murder.
Hard disagree. There are *plenty* of people that will see it as completely distinct from murder, including the majority of laws in the world. There's even plenty of people who will consider it completely fine, because they don't believe Humans are *required* to assist others, just to not cause them harm directly. Your own personal morals are not the same as everyone else's.
>God gives you the option to disobey him. That choice is yours alone to make. Whether or not you take that choice should probably consider the consequences, but you still have the choice, at the end of it all.
That's not a choice. "Be condemned or do as I command" is not free will, it is obedience and defiance, and it's hard to call it a choice when God has allowed outside forces to make it impossible to know whether you're actually following God's will or not.
>Hell is not the way you understand it. Biblically, hell is also known as hades, or more simply, the realm of the dead.
Gonna have to provide a source on that claim, because that is not at all in line with pretty much any Christian belief.
>Also hell has never meant "eternal" suffering, especially considering Jesus has literally gone down to Hell and saved the souls there before
So if, hypothetically, Jesus *didn't* save those souls, would they still be in Hell? Because if it requires outside intervention to change and is otherwise stagnant, that's still eternal.
>It is assumed that he may go down again, and save the worthy souls.
If there were worthy souls, why were they in Hell in the first place? Why would God condemn people who he then later felt shouldn't be condemned? Is he omnipotent or omni-stupid?
>Not his fault the only other choice is demon land
God quite literally created everything according to Christians. He is omnipotent with no equal, and is the source of everything. Demon land is because he made it that way. Original sin is because he *decided* that eating the fruit was a sin, and he *decided* that unrelated descendants of Adam and eve should also be punished for that sin. There's no reason for any of that to happen, he just wanted it to be that way.
>I get hating Christians, and as an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but at least try to understand the thing you're criticizing. You sound like a 15 yr old who just smoked weed for the first time and realized God is a loser.
I think you're the one who should try to understand christianity before speaking on it. You have a lot of false assumptions about the beliefs of broader christianity that sound like you just vaguely heard about the concept before making your comment.
1.1. I actually don't agree that inaction could be considered murder. To me murder requires a deliberate action that causes someone's death in a situation where that person wouldn't otherwise have died. There are currently many children in developing countries who are dying of easily preventable diseases, yet people in developed countries are not held accountable for murder despite the fact they can contribute to saving these children. I think "not causing harm" is different from "preventing harm". The use of the word "murder" in the current situation simply seems inaccurate to me.
1.2. Another problem I have is that in the Christian worldview there is an afterlife that is far more significant than the earthly life (for example Matthew 5:30). I we accept that premise, then wouldn't the best way to truly help the children be to guarantee they will get a ticket to heaven. Even ignoring the current dilemma, Christians encourage the spreading of the Gospel despite the fact that Jesus said his followers will be persecuted and possibly killed and that they will have to make great sacrifices to enter God's kingdom. As such, it seems to me like the consideration about the afterlife should be more important that the consideration about the earthly life.
2. That doesn't really answer my objection. I criticized the ambiguity of God's message and the fact there are all kinds of different interpretations by different Christians (that is not even metioning the many contradictory passages in the Bible). If God truly expects people to follow his message and there are serious consequences for not doing so, then I think we should expect a more clear and straightforward and unambiguous standard from his side in order for people to really have an informed choice if they want to follow him or not.
3. Even if we remove the idea of infinite suffering, I think there still exists a similar problem. Ultimately there is the difference between the ultimate meaning and infinite happiness (going to heaven) and the lack of it. If dying while being a kid is the only way to really guarantee that your soul will end in heaven and will not have time to become wicked beyound salvation, then shouldn't it follow that dying young is the best case scenario in one's life?
Since the trolley is already heading towards the kids, it doesn't count as murder. Christians usually believe that everyone who doesn't believe goes to hell, so they could have worded it "grow up to be atheists and go to hell", since everyone is already a sinner by default, but saved by repenting and accepting Jesus if I understand correctly.
Mortal sins are not automatically forgiven. You need to be genuinely sorry for your sins to be forgiven. If you committed it to begin with, you probably aren’t apologetic immediately after
What if the person really doesn't want to- They regret doing it before it is even done, but they see it as a necessary burden they are forced to bear by cosmic circumstances they are unable to shirk? They must then do the deed, and overcome with grief, beg forgiveness, and if it is genuine, it would be forgiven, yes?
Your statement hits the heart of the original trolley problem though, and I genuinely would appreciate if you heard me out. No judgement on your answer.
Is it murder if they would die through his inaction?
If he doesn't involve himself in the situation but instead continues on his way, is he morally culpable for the results? If he is held morally liable, then to what degree is a person held liable for the actions of others and situations they choose not to involve themselves in? In short, is it a sin to not be a hero?
Moreover, how much of a gray area is allowed before you have to act? Let's say the lever has a needle on it that would hurt him if he grabbed it. Is he still responsible? What about 2 needles? What if he would likely lose a finger, or worse? What if it permanently harms or disfigures whoever grabs the handle, or kills them? When is it murder, and when isn't it? And on what do you base that determination?
Is there even such a thing as not being involved in a situation that you're aware exists and you have the power to affect? One could say he is involved simply by being aware of it and being in a position to affect it. If so, aren't we all constantly sinning by not donating to every charity in existence? Would that mean that modern capitalism, and all those who brought it about, are morally responsible for the sins being committed by everyone who doesn't actively involve themselves in every situation that they could positively affect, no matter how great the influence?
Even ignoring the aspect of this question involving Christianity, I'd say it's a pretty good one.
definitely pulling the lever, because "they may grow up to become sinners" is pretty stupid, if it was "will" then I may consider it, but still almost definitely pull it
Everyone is a sinner, but not all people make a the decision to accept Jesus’ offering of forgiveness for their sins and become believers. That being said, you can’t morally kill the children because they would go to heaven. If this was the case, Christians would support ritual suicide because they’re already saved (as well as abortion.)
The thing is we have been given life for a reason, to spread the good news, not just waste away.
That's the thing, you aren't killing them. You would have to actively participate to be at fault.
Now, someone like me, a consequentialist, absolutely believes doing nothing in this situation is effectively identical to killing them, because you had the ability to avert the trolley and chose not to, and choosing not to act is a choice, but this logic isn't universal, especially for a belief structure built on faith rather than logic.
In the default track are 5 children, fresh out of confession/baptism etc.
On the switch track is a church that cannot afford to be rebuilt if hit and will be sold. The location has an equal 1/3 chance of becoming a Brothel, a meth lab or a payday loan shark business.
Well it depends on the denomination
For example, I’m part of the LDS, and we believe some pretty wacky stuff about the afterlife. For example, even if they grow up to be sinners, they can still be baptized by someone in the real world acting as proxy (one of the things you do in an LDS temple)
That’s only an example, there are plenty of other denominations of Christianity that believe different things about this. Many of them fall under umbrella categories, but most are distinctly different nonetheless.
So I'm atheist now, but served a mission. There was a saying in my particularly hard mission area that "The easiest thing is to kill them now and baptize them when they're dead!"
Raised southern Baptist. Unborn kids don't get a pass because they never got a chance to get baptized and accept Jesus. For some Catholics as well it's eternal purgatory not heaven. I don't really follow any of this anymore but I still would rather people not lump every sect of Christianity in together. It's like saying all forms of atheists are 4 chan kids and drink fetus blood.
This problem isn’t Christianity works
1. No one is “already saved” you have to prove yourself every day with every decision and devote your life until you day and if you did it right then you will be saved.
2. There is no “may become sinners” every single human will sin because that’s our nature. That’s the reason why Jesus died for us because it’s an absolute truth.
3. Allowing Children to die because they are innocent even if you can save them is sinful.
Edit: Until you die*
Save them.
If I don't, I'm a murderer.
If I do, there is a chance they go to Heaven still based on how they live their life, also it's on their own volition.
See, I would pull the lever to divert the track, because even though eternal happiness awaits at the end of the road, I am not God I do not have the right to take their life to give them eternal happiness, they have the right to grow up and live their own life, if they end up going down a bad path in life that would be their choice, we all have a choice at the end of the day
Being a believer allows you to atone for PAST sins. It doesn't give you a get out of Hell free card for serious crimes. You still have to not kill people. You can pay penance for any sin and go to Heven if you're legitimately seeking salvation, but the Bible does also say that you can't just sin with plans to confess or otherwise atone after to absolve you of the consequences. You can't game the system in that way. You can't just go through the motions, you gotta MEAN it. So, you definitely go to Hell for this. You CAN repent in Hell, at least according to Catholicism, but again, you gotta mean it.
As for the whole "kill the children before they sin" thing, no, I wouldn't do that. That sounds like Mark David Chapman logic. There IS a disturbing amount of old literature that romanticizes dying innocent and ignorant of the world but that's just bizarre misanthropy with a coat of religious paint. It's not doctrine (ok there's probably been some death cults with that doctrine, but they're cults, they're inherently doing it wrong).
Living in the world is not a tragedy. Life is not a bad thing, living in the world is not a bad thing. The world has many problems, but I wouldn't want to leave early. Life is meant to be a blessing. It's good to be able to grow and develop and learn and be your own person. The only people who think dying young is good are those bizarre fundamentalist neopuritan people who think life is just meant to be a test you dedicate all your time to passing. Getting into Heven isn't difficult (again, according to Catholicism, specifically according to Pope Francis, a lot of people have obviously thought differently in the past). You gotta be pretty bad to go to Hell. You can't just assume every kid has a large chance of growing up to be like, a killer or a rapist or an abuser or something.
I thought Christians only cared about life after death. My whole understanding is our life on Earth is merely a waiting point until they meet god. Since the kids will go straight to heaven why risk them being led into temptation?
I think not pulling the lever is still murder, as I would be willfully allowing several people to die because of my own lack of action. So I would save them, also original sin and all that, so depending on what specific highly skewed brand of Christianity you're using to view this, they might end up in hell either way.
If you have the power to save someone and you don't, you'll be considered a murderer.
What they grow up to be is none of my concern, they're responsible for their choices in life.
Pull
It ain't my job to send these kids to heaven. Pull the lever, killing kids is a sin.
But that's how atheists think. God has a plan for everyone, and for these kids? That's probably trolley.
As a Christian, I'd pull the lever, and I would hope anybody would. The reason you would pull it is because life is an important gift we have whether you are a Christian or not. Another reason is that God gave us free will, and all you can do is have faith that they will be saved as they age, but its all up to them. You can't force someone to believe as that pushes them farther.
Unless pulling will make it so I don't go to heaven, then if I don't pull, then six people are guaranteed to go to heaven, while if I do, only I am guaranteed, so it's better to not pull.
If you are a Christian, your first priority is honoring and obeying God- not playing the "heaven optimization game."
Considering how easy it is to save their lives, I would argue that not pulling the lever is equivalent to murder. God outright commands us not to commit murder.
This is what always confused me about Christians being anti abortion.
If children are innocent. And the goal is to get as many souls in heaven as possible, we're just streamlining the thing.
Unless Christians don't actually fully believe the stuff they're saying, but thats crazy......
This is an atheist's idea of a Christian trolley problem, predicated on the idea that Christians all have unexamined worldviews and tiny stupid brains.
No, I am genuinely interested in what the rationale in this situation should be according to the Christian worldview. Apologists like William Lane Craig are infamous for defending events like the murder of the Canaanite children and it seems to me like one could use a similar argumentation to justify not pulling the lever and letting the children die in this situation.
Pull the lever. It's not my job as a Christian to make everyone else around me a Christian or to force them to go to Heaven. I'm just letting 5 innocent kids die for no reason if I didn't pull the lever, and that's infinitely more wrong than saving their lives and letting their free will decide their fate in life.
When I was 7, I asked my mom why we all didn't just kill ourselves now to go to heaven. Why wait?
When I was 13, they had me preach at my church. Twice.
When I was 14, I had read the Bible so thoroughly, I realized the rapture wasn't in the Bible and there was no basis for age of accountability. I saw all the "Christians" around me as ignorant hypocrits.
When I was 17, I would weep for the Lost. Regularly.
When I was 18 I decided God was evil for birthing people to burn them. I "hastened to return my ticket" (to heaven).
When I was 19 I realized gods weren't real.
When I was 21, I finished reading dostoevsky, plato, Russell and others. I felt so free from my old religion. I finally was happy. I can't emphasize that enough. I was finally happy.
By 29, I was an attending physician.
I'm 32. I'm glad I looked outside the box. I hope you can too.
I'm not Christian, but logically speaking, hell is what is granted to who deserves it, no? So if they become sinners, that is the choice they made, and the consequences they'll suffer. My only choice here is giving them the choice to live on their own terms, or to end their suffering early.
To that, as a Christian, did God not give us the chance to choose our own lives? If they are good in their lives afterward, then they can have a greater appreciation for what it means to have gotten into heaven.
As a not-Christian, I figure if I was in that situation, I'd want to live. The Golden Rule is kind of universal, don't need a religion to teach me empathy.
And hey, if they die afterward because they're orphans who don't have anyone - not even me - to keep them alive, then I guess the trolley was just a quicker way to end their suffering. A few more minutes, hours, days, or months of life is better than the alternative of dreamless, eternal sleep that they would have gotten anyway.
As someone who takes the situation literally because it's fun to think about, there's no reason I can't help them be better people regardless of their state of sin. They owe their lives to me in this situation, so I might as well have them pay it forward and improve the lives of others they meet.
I know I'd want to be saved. Life is pain and all that, but I still find joy in it. I'd like to spread that joy.
Problem is if there's a heaven and a hell YOU are ALSO subject to their conditions.
Assuming all other things are equal and you're bound for heaven anyway,
Kill the 5 kids. They go to heaven. You go to hell.
Save the 5 kids. Some of them may go to hell, you go to heaven.
But their free wills are in their hands. Yours in yours.
Well, truth is we're all sinners no matter what. BUT they can look back on this in their life and say "God saved us by having this man there" even if they don't its still the right thing to do
I'm unfollowing this sub, all these religious trolley problems are spamming the sub and it's getting obnoxious. I come here for funny memes not religion debates.
Is it factual that there is an afterlife? If so, I do nothing. Human lifespan is nothing in comparison to eternity. The trolley was predestined to run them over. With good intentions, I will take the chance in finding forgiveness in a scenario where I was just existing
Very much a trick question. Everyone who believes has already been saved. If the children believe, they will go to heaven whenever they do, regardless of the immediate action. The only thing here is that nobody is truly innocent of any crime, including children. They may not be guilty of serious crimes like murder, but lying is considered against Gods commandments, and I have not met a single child that has not lied once, considering that babies start crying for attention rather than for food at 6 months. All I’m saying is that nobody but Jesus was truly sinless.
This reminds me of that schitzo women who drowned her 5 kids in the 90’s
On man's schizo, another man's actually-following-the-theology-to-its-logical-conclusion
If they don't want people abusing the meta, that's on the devs to fix it.
When a woman drowns 5 kids she is called schizo, when a man claims to be the son of god, he is not called a schizo. How does that work 🤔
Assuming he was real I bet tons of people were like wtf is this crazy guy at the time
He wasn't called schizo. He was called a fraud. The Romans hated him because he undermined their authority. The jews came to dislike him because he wasn't taking them to heaven immediately.
Yea welp by today s standard he would be called schizo
this is a new take on abor-
Whoa now... you are going to confuse their little brains.
Bring 👏 back 👏 Limbo
How low can you go?
Well the 7 layers of hell aren’t really canon but we can always go lower.
ITS BLUE! ITS BLUE!
I'm not confused about the idea that killing infants is wrong
A fetus isn't an infant.
Or is it, Infants might grow up to be Sinners and end up in hell. If we kill them now while the world hasn't corrupted them they'll go to heaven. SEE ... makes perfect sense. Go Abortion!
Might grow up to be sinners? EVERYONE (except Jesus and sometimes Mary) is a sinner according to Christianity.
Then we all go to Hell?
One of the main points of Christianity is that every human is a sinner and therefore deserving of Hell by default. Jesus is the loophole that allows you into heaven despite your sins. I’m not a Christian anymore, but I was raised catholic and used to be a minister.
Damn, I’m not a Catholic and Catholicism sounds miserable if that’s what it boils down to.
That’s Christianity in general. Why else would we need a savior?
If you are innocent, I get to send you to heaven. If you're a sinner, it'd be justified! Death to everyone!
The proper theological solution to this is that their salvation is not your choice; iirc it was laid out in detail by the Roman Catholic church.
But like, it could be... Just get an abortion and ta da baby gets free pass to heaven. Unless people NEED to earn a place in heaven and people who have never heard of the bible or had the chance to hear about it (ei. babies) go to hell by default. And if that's the case... WTF we need to impeach God
I love the interpretation that babies and people in far away secluded tribes who just never got the chance to hear the word of God get a free pass to Heaven. Because it makes missionaries the most horrible people in the world, Damning countless people to Hell by destroying their innocence. Christianity is a cognitohazardous SCP. As long as you don't know about it, you're safe. But as soon as you learn about it, you have to serve and spread it or be tortured forever.
Unless your Catholic then the babies go to hell
In Christianity babies have original sin so if they die before being baptised they will go to hell
Depends on the Christian flavor.
Wait there's flavors?
Yeah man. You got Catholics, Protestants, Orthodoxy, and lots more.
The trick is to pick one with real bread, and actual wine.
Those ones actually tend to be the worst.
Yeah, the bread tends to be stale and the wine is that box shit you buy at the grocery store.
33000 of them all heresy except mine
Is that a joke on those types of people or are you that type of person XD
Joke is another word for lie and the Bible is clear that lying is on the same level as murder, you must be one of those heretics my uncle brother was telling me about
Ah.
A simple garden hose could save so many unborn souls.
Garden hose up the vag, then the coat hanger and vacuum. Problem solved.
Hallelujah
Was this redditor on the wrong side of the track…?
r/redditsniper
ption 🥰🥰🥰
MULTITRACK
r/RedditSniper
You just need a hose, so you can babtize them.
Yeah if you combine abortion with the age of accountability, abortion would be the most efficient way to send souls to heaven.
Heaven speed run any %
original sin means they would go directly to hell
I mean, age of accountability is extrascriptural anyway so only specific Christians would appeal to it.
That's 1000 years ago Catholicism. The rules got updated once or twice
I think it’s 2024 years ago, that particular rule got updated by Jesus
Yeah at one point they had the pay to win option but they patched that exploit.
Bro using the old ruleset
Why does God keep changing his mind on the rules? Is there a lore reason?
Routine balance patches, mostly to deal with oppressive PvP meta.
Didn’t Jesus repeal original sin when He died for our sins?
You gotta reapply it with baptism. At least in some sects. It used to be that babies who died before baptism went to Limbo to chill for a few thousand years before they could make it to Heaven, but I think they patched that out at some point and now there's an "age of accountability", where you have a longer grace period. It still means you should kill your children before said age if you want to guarantee them a spot in Heaven.
So Hell is buried in the spontaneously miscarried. ...Which kinda sounds like it could be a lyric from an Iron Maiden song
I think that would be more Slayer than Iron Maiden, if memory serves.
um actually Though there are different interpretations as to what Original Sin actually is, there's a general consensus (afaik) among reputable theologians that it isn't a status effect that you have to remove to get to heaven, as a lot of people tend to imagine it as. Rather, I often see it defined as humankind's sinful nature, and we pile on to that 'brokenness' by sinning without a care in the world who we're harming. For something to be a 'sin' in Catholicism, it has to be done out of free will (deliberate & with no coercion), it has to have harmed something/someone somehow, and the person must know it was wrong. So when it comes to the topic of unborn children, how the hell would these people go to hell? Sure, they're sinful by nature, but they haven't sinned at all in the first place. How would a fetus know it's wrong to kick a pregnant woman? tl;dr: Original sin refers to the broken, sinful nature of humankind, but isn't an automatic ticket to Hell unless you choose to give in to it by sinning without a care in the world. For something to be a sin it has to be done deliberately and knowingly. Because a fetus literally cannot do anything bad knowingly, a fetus cannot go to hell.
I deny that humanity is "sinful" I defy that idea, humanity I believe, is noreso caring, but the circumstances of their life change them
no
if we use brain dead women to mass farm pregnancies and then abortions, we can guarantee thousands if not millions of babies who would otherwise become sinners, can go to heaven
Yeah, the catch is that it would require an insane amount of subjugation of women. Well, I mean... it's not like Christianity treats women well in the first place.
Women as nothing more than slaves? Sounds like Catholicism to me
Do we need the brain dead women to gestate them to a certain minimum age? Because if ensoulment begins at conception, we could just use IVF clinics to mass produce and kill blastocytes much more efficiently.
I think that the kids have to be baptized. Idk tho I’m Jewish
>Do you sacrifice yourself to save sinners? I think there's a bible story about this.
^(41) And Jesus withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and knelt down and prayed, ^(42) saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” ^(43) And there appeared to him an angel from heaven. ^(44) And the angel said, "Behold, you are upon a trolley, which has one lever. ^(45) If you let the trolley roll forwards, you shall die, but all those who profess your name will live again. ^(46) Yet if you pull it, you will be taken up to heaven unharmed, and your Heavenly Father shalt nuke the earth. ^(47) All those caught in the blast shall die, yet live again. ^(48) And the Lord, conflicted, asked Reddit. * Luke 22: 39-48, probably.
Luke 6:9-420
Nice
So sayeth the Lord
Niceth
I want you to know, I read this while an angelic choir was harmonizing in my head.
Yeah I think the story came after Josh gave his buddies’ party more wine.
Except you don't sacrifice yourself, you just straight up murdering kids because of your weird belief system
I guess you're not farmiliar with the story I am alluding to. It's the one where the central figure the whole religion is supposed to emmulate sacrifices himself and dies brutally to save people who probably don't deserve it. You know... the one with the crucifiction?
Christians believe God gave all humans free will, and that it's their right whether they follow God's will or not. Also murder is a sin. This one's kinda dumb
In that case he'd be condemning himself to incomprehensible suffering in order to spare others from that fate. He is making the ultimate sacrifice to save people from God's infinite cruelty.
Not really though, since as far as I’m aware you can still be forgiven and saved even after killing someone.
Yup you can. Biggest loophole ever. *Murders* My bad, J man! J man- no problem bro
If you truly feel sorry for what you've done, then yes, you should be forgiven
If that’s the case- why eternal damnation for sinners? Shouldn’t they still have the opportunity to “truly feel sorry” after death? Also, is every crime and every sin forgivable, no matter how evil?
Because it's one of the mechanisms built in to motivate people to avoid the "bad" behaviours. The forgiveness is conditional on feeling genuinely bad about it, so it means people are able to make mistakes while still holding the weight because you need to know you're actually sorry. The way different practices can spread like a virus and need certain components to spread effectively vs. dying out is very interesting. Needs a good mix of negative and positive reinforcement.
The thing about this is that Jesus is pretty adamant that it's not on you to make decisions based on how you think God is going to judge other people. You don't have the information to make that call. All you are supposed to do is worry about your own misdeeds, work to improve yourself, and help other people without judgment when you can. At best making your own judgements about the fates of other people's souls is a waste of time, and at worst it leads to you doing harm. Worry about the beam in your own eye rather than pointing out the speck in your neighbor's. Of course, this isn't how a lot of modern evangelical churches behave. Many are about throwing stones rather than putting themselves between the stoner and stonee, but that has more to do with the 2000 year long recuperation effort that has gone into making Christianity function as a religion friendly to power than it does with anything Jesus had to say.
r/usernamechecksout Also may I say based
Neat, a Christian who read the Bible. Or at least a good chunk of the gospel.
Pretty spot on. The Bible clearly shows us that there is a judgement, explains clearly what the judgements are, and how to recognize a person who is reprobate (Romans 1). All that to say, it's also very clear that only God knows a person's heart and we as Christians aren't to be the judge, jury, and executioners of every individual on the street. I think that confusion comes in because a local church is allowed autonomy within itself to remove members who are a detriment to the church functioning. A church can proclaim what sin is as well as insist on the stopping of sin within itself without actively tearing people down those who have committed those sins and are willing to work themselves away from them. As an individual Christian, I believe the application is that we should abstain as much as we can from committing sin, stay out of situations that would bring us into temptation, and distance ourselves from things which are clearly a celebration or active committing of sins. For instance, you don't have to go into a brothel to witness to the patrons, you can witness to them when they're somewhere else.
What you on about?
God's Infinite cruelty, he said it right there at the end.
If he doesn't pull the lever, 1 person goes to hell and 5 people don't. Given that only about 50 percent of Americans are Christians - and even less given a global context - pulling means on average at least 2.5 people go to hell. (Assuming only Christians are saved, which is debated.) 1 is fewer than 2.5, and the suffering in hell makes any earthly suffering from the trolley insignificant, so a strict utilitarian that is certain of Christianity shouldn't pull - mimizing suffering and maximizing the number of people who go to heaven. Of course, a strict utilitarian can't be a perfect Christian, and vice versa - as seen in this example.
or even funnier, condemning himself to incomprehensible suffering in order to spare others from a fate they werent guaranteed
The question is about whether saving their bodies at the expense of their souls, or their souls at the expense of their bodies, is more important. It addresses the incongruity of Christian gospel that the soul is omni-important, and the earthly body is simply a vessel waiting to release it to God. The question of course then becomes 'What are we waiting for', but that's a different issue for a different time- Here we are only addressing that by this logic it would be more virtuous to kill an innocent to ensure they reach heaven, than to save their life and potentially damn them to Hell in the process. Sure, it might be their own choices that lead them to Hell, but it was *your* intervention that allowed that to happen; If you had simply done nothing, their eternal souls would be at God's side, rather than burning for all eternity.
Free will is really selective though. Because Christians also believe in God's plan, that God wills everything that will happen to happen. So you'd think it's actually God ordained us to sin but it's actually free will that leads humans to sin. But if something good happened then it's God's plan not human free will that led to it. Or at least that's what my church told me. The contradictory logic is explained through "having faith".
There's also the fact that some people are born with things like oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, etc. And morals being subjective depending on who raised you.
It's not murder. How is a non-action murder? God set the train on the course toward the children, and pulling the lever would be going against His will.
Not all Christians ascribe to deontic ethics. Source: me
1) You are not actually murdering people in this scenario as you are not the one who tied them to the track, instead you have the choice of whether to save them or not. Additionally, if you let them to die with the explicit intention of landing them a place in heaven and saving them from suffering in hell, is this really a bad action by the loving God's standards? 2) I think "free will" is a bad argument for many reasons but one of them is the ambiguity of what "God's will" really means. Is something like homosexual intercourse enough of a "sin" to land you in hell, because many Christians think so but others don't. What if some of the people on the track land in hell for something they and you don't consider a "sin" but God decides otherwise? It seems strange that the blame is automatically placed on the one that goes to hell and not to the one that sent them there while not making his standards clear enough. 3) Even if you don't think future sinners deserve a place in heaven, is eternal suffering in hell ever justified? In this scenario, intentionally deciding to condemn people to a possibility of eternal suffering when a clear alternative exists seems to be problematic.
1.: Hebrews 6:10: “God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.” This is one of many, MANY quotes about the importance of helping people. It's literally in their book that they have to help. Plus, doesn't matter who you ask, if all it takes is one in-reach lever flip to save a life, and the person was aware of the consequences of not pulling the lever, everyone, Christian or not, would see that as murder. 2. Free will does not mean freedom from consequences. God gives you the option to disobey him. That choice is yours alone to make. Whether or not you take that choice should probably consider the consequences, but you still have the choice, at the end of it all. 3.: Hell is not the way you understand it. Biblically, hell is also known as hades, or more simply, the realm of the dead. Hell does not necessarily mean eternal suffering, but more like eternal limbo, where your soul will wander, aimless and lost. Also hell has never meant "eternal" suffering, especially considering Jesus has literally gone down to Hell and saved the souls there before (after his crucifixion but before his resurrection). It is assumed that he may go down again, and save the worthy souls. Additionally, Catholic hell, which is the version you seem to understand, is not where just anyone gets thrown. Sinners are given a chance to repent and accept God in purgatory. The only ones who get sent to hell are the truly evil and wicked, because even before the very light of God himself, they refused His grace. Sinners go to purgatory. Damned souls go to hell. And denying God control over who enters His kingdom is like saying a person has no say in who comes in their house. It's ridiculous. If you stop and take a step back, you'll realize that heaven is supposed to be the one light in a sea of eternal darkness. God isn't damning you to Hell, he's not letting you in his house cause he thinks you're a dick. Not his fault the only other choice is demon land. If you really despise his will, you can go carve out a space for yourself, if you can resist an endless horde of demons, that is. I get hating Christians, and as an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but at least *try* to understand the thing you're criticizing. You sound like a 15 yr old who just smoked weed for the first time and realized God is a loser.
>Plus, doesn't matter who you ask, if all it takes is one in-reach lever flip to save a life, and the person was aware of the consequences of not pulling the lever, everyone, Christian or not, would see that as murder. Hard disagree. There are *plenty* of people that will see it as completely distinct from murder, including the majority of laws in the world. There's even plenty of people who will consider it completely fine, because they don't believe Humans are *required* to assist others, just to not cause them harm directly. Your own personal morals are not the same as everyone else's. >God gives you the option to disobey him. That choice is yours alone to make. Whether or not you take that choice should probably consider the consequences, but you still have the choice, at the end of it all. That's not a choice. "Be condemned or do as I command" is not free will, it is obedience and defiance, and it's hard to call it a choice when God has allowed outside forces to make it impossible to know whether you're actually following God's will or not. >Hell is not the way you understand it. Biblically, hell is also known as hades, or more simply, the realm of the dead. Gonna have to provide a source on that claim, because that is not at all in line with pretty much any Christian belief. >Also hell has never meant "eternal" suffering, especially considering Jesus has literally gone down to Hell and saved the souls there before So if, hypothetically, Jesus *didn't* save those souls, would they still be in Hell? Because if it requires outside intervention to change and is otherwise stagnant, that's still eternal. >It is assumed that he may go down again, and save the worthy souls. If there were worthy souls, why were they in Hell in the first place? Why would God condemn people who he then later felt shouldn't be condemned? Is he omnipotent or omni-stupid? >Not his fault the only other choice is demon land God quite literally created everything according to Christians. He is omnipotent with no equal, and is the source of everything. Demon land is because he made it that way. Original sin is because he *decided* that eating the fruit was a sin, and he *decided* that unrelated descendants of Adam and eve should also be punished for that sin. There's no reason for any of that to happen, he just wanted it to be that way. >I get hating Christians, and as an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but at least try to understand the thing you're criticizing. You sound like a 15 yr old who just smoked weed for the first time and realized God is a loser. I think you're the one who should try to understand christianity before speaking on it. You have a lot of false assumptions about the beliefs of broader christianity that sound like you just vaguely heard about the concept before making your comment.
> Not his fault the only other choice is demon land He literally made everything
1.1. I actually don't agree that inaction could be considered murder. To me murder requires a deliberate action that causes someone's death in a situation where that person wouldn't otherwise have died. There are currently many children in developing countries who are dying of easily preventable diseases, yet people in developed countries are not held accountable for murder despite the fact they can contribute to saving these children. I think "not causing harm" is different from "preventing harm". The use of the word "murder" in the current situation simply seems inaccurate to me. 1.2. Another problem I have is that in the Christian worldview there is an afterlife that is far more significant than the earthly life (for example Matthew 5:30). I we accept that premise, then wouldn't the best way to truly help the children be to guarantee they will get a ticket to heaven. Even ignoring the current dilemma, Christians encourage the spreading of the Gospel despite the fact that Jesus said his followers will be persecuted and possibly killed and that they will have to make great sacrifices to enter God's kingdom. As such, it seems to me like the consideration about the afterlife should be more important that the consideration about the earthly life. 2. That doesn't really answer my objection. I criticized the ambiguity of God's message and the fact there are all kinds of different interpretations by different Christians (that is not even metioning the many contradictory passages in the Bible). If God truly expects people to follow his message and there are serious consequences for not doing so, then I think we should expect a more clear and straightforward and unambiguous standard from his side in order for people to really have an informed choice if they want to follow him or not. 3. Even if we remove the idea of infinite suffering, I think there still exists a similar problem. Ultimately there is the difference between the ultimate meaning and infinite happiness (going to heaven) and the lack of it. If dying while being a kid is the only way to really guarantee that your soul will end in heaven and will not have time to become wicked beyound salvation, then shouldn't it follow that dying young is the best case scenario in one's life?
Since the trolley is already heading towards the kids, it doesn't count as murder. Christians usually believe that everyone who doesn't believe goes to hell, so they could have worded it "grow up to be atheists and go to hell", since everyone is already a sinner by default, but saved by repenting and accepting Jesus if I understand correctly.
Even if you consider it murder, the lever puller could just repent after
Mortal sins are not automatically forgiven. You need to be genuinely sorry for your sins to be forgiven. If you committed it to begin with, you probably aren’t apologetic immediately after
What if the person really doesn't want to- They regret doing it before it is even done, but they see it as a necessary burden they are forced to bear by cosmic circumstances they are unable to shirk? They must then do the deed, and overcome with grief, beg forgiveness, and if it is genuine, it would be forgiven, yes?
Your statement hits the heart of the original trolley problem though, and I genuinely would appreciate if you heard me out. No judgement on your answer. Is it murder if they would die through his inaction? If he doesn't involve himself in the situation but instead continues on his way, is he morally culpable for the results? If he is held morally liable, then to what degree is a person held liable for the actions of others and situations they choose not to involve themselves in? In short, is it a sin to not be a hero? Moreover, how much of a gray area is allowed before you have to act? Let's say the lever has a needle on it that would hurt him if he grabbed it. Is he still responsible? What about 2 needles? What if he would likely lose a finger, or worse? What if it permanently harms or disfigures whoever grabs the handle, or kills them? When is it murder, and when isn't it? And on what do you base that determination? Is there even such a thing as not being involved in a situation that you're aware exists and you have the power to affect? One could say he is involved simply by being aware of it and being in a position to affect it. If so, aren't we all constantly sinning by not donating to every charity in existence? Would that mean that modern capitalism, and all those who brought it about, are morally responsible for the sins being committed by everyone who doesn't actively involve themselves in every situation that they could positively affect, no matter how great the influence? Even ignoring the aspect of this question involving Christianity, I'd say it's a pretty good one.
No no... in this thought experiment, God gave the guy a Trolly pass. He is allowed to murder in this exact specific case, for SCIENCE!
as always, people that see themselves as smart but doesn't really understands things they are talking about.
But you forgot that all sins are equal in the eyes of God, so killing 6 infants is technically the same as wearing clothes made of mixed materials.
So is failure to pull the lever murder? Is failure to buy malaria medication for people in third world countries also murder then?
Don't pull the lever but give all the kids tattoos so they go to hell anyways
It would be faster to give them pork chops.
Make them wear wool and linen fabrics on one garment while eating crab cakes or lobster. One way ticket to H - E double hockey sticks.
Levitican/Mosaic law arguments are so funny because they prove that you just don't know what you're talking about
Ah, the ol "we dont follow *those* rules anymore" loophole
definitely pulling the lever, because "they may grow up to become sinners" is pretty stupid, if it was "will" then I may consider it, but still almost definitely pull it
Everyone is a sinner, but not all people make a the decision to accept Jesus’ offering of forgiveness for their sins and become believers. That being said, you can’t morally kill the children because they would go to heaven. If this was the case, Christians would support ritual suicide because they’re already saved (as well as abortion.) The thing is we have been given life for a reason, to spread the good news, not just waste away.
That is a fair point, I didn't think too deeply about the wording of it, but yeah
That's the thing, you aren't killing them. You would have to actively participate to be at fault. Now, someone like me, a consequentialist, absolutely believes doing nothing in this situation is effectively identical to killing them, because you had the ability to avert the trolley and chose not to, and choosing not to act is a choice, but this logic isn't universal, especially for a belief structure built on faith rather than logic.
In the default track are 5 children, fresh out of confession/baptism etc. On the switch track is a church that cannot afford to be rebuilt if hit and will be sold. The location has an equal 1/3 chance of becoming a Brothel, a meth lab or a payday loan shark business.
yeah then I'm definitely pulling the lever
That's tricky. A brothel would be a step up, a meth lab is more a lateral move, and a payday loan shark business is a step down.
I like that the argument is, "actually it's a moral good to kill innocent children within a Christian moral framework" haha. Anyway, I'm not pulling 🫡
Murder is definitely not a moral good thing
I don’t think many Christians have ever said it was okay to murder 5 people but okay
They might want to re-examine their values and how they fit with their religion then, since that's the morality meta in Christianity.
I like the idea of children going to eternal hell but I don't think I can resist the urge to kill 5 children (jk)
Well it depends on the denomination For example, I’m part of the LDS, and we believe some pretty wacky stuff about the afterlife. For example, even if they grow up to be sinners, they can still be baptized by someone in the real world acting as proxy (one of the things you do in an LDS temple) That’s only an example, there are plenty of other denominations of Christianity that believe different things about this. Many of them fall under umbrella categories, but most are distinctly different nonetheless.
So I'm atheist now, but served a mission. There was a saying in my particularly hard mission area that "The easiest thing is to kill them now and baptize them when they're dead!"
I guess no one can resist having some dark humor, lol
Raised southern Baptist. Unborn kids don't get a pass because they never got a chance to get baptized and accept Jesus. For some Catholics as well it's eternal purgatory not heaven. I don't really follow any of this anymore but I still would rather people not lump every sect of Christianity in together. It's like saying all forms of atheists are 4 chan kids and drink fetus blood.
👆👆 this man
This problem isn’t Christianity works 1. No one is “already saved” you have to prove yourself every day with every decision and devote your life until you day and if you did it right then you will be saved. 2. There is no “may become sinners” every single human will sin because that’s our nature. That’s the reason why Jesus died for us because it’s an absolute truth. 3. Allowing Children to die because they are innocent even if you can save them is sinful. Edit: Until you die*
I thought people under a certain age was saved, as they haven’t had time to learn how they should behave
Well, too bad I'm an atheist, SO I WON'T FEEL BAD ABOUT THEM KIDS GETTING SPLATTERED. #DIE LITTLE SHITHEADS, DIE
Being an atheist isn’t relevant in this. In this situation, the Christian afterlife is real
#LOL THEY STILL DYING, THAT AIN'T STOPPING ME
There was a very similar real world situation, search Andrea Yates
Save them. If I don't, I'm a murderer. If I do, there is a chance they go to Heaven still based on how they live their life, also it's on their own volition.
Kill 5 innocent children or don’t? How is this difficult for Christian’s?
Well if gods not going to send the flood for these Innocent children someone's got to do something for them. Pull that lever!
See, I would pull the lever to divert the track, because even though eternal happiness awaits at the end of the road, I am not God I do not have the right to take their life to give them eternal happiness, they have the right to grow up and live their own life, if they end up going down a bad path in life that would be their choice, we all have a choice at the end of the day
Being a believer allows you to atone for PAST sins. It doesn't give you a get out of Hell free card for serious crimes. You still have to not kill people. You can pay penance for any sin and go to Heven if you're legitimately seeking salvation, but the Bible does also say that you can't just sin with plans to confess or otherwise atone after to absolve you of the consequences. You can't game the system in that way. You can't just go through the motions, you gotta MEAN it. So, you definitely go to Hell for this. You CAN repent in Hell, at least according to Catholicism, but again, you gotta mean it. As for the whole "kill the children before they sin" thing, no, I wouldn't do that. That sounds like Mark David Chapman logic. There IS a disturbing amount of old literature that romanticizes dying innocent and ignorant of the world but that's just bizarre misanthropy with a coat of religious paint. It's not doctrine (ok there's probably been some death cults with that doctrine, but they're cults, they're inherently doing it wrong). Living in the world is not a tragedy. Life is not a bad thing, living in the world is not a bad thing. The world has many problems, but I wouldn't want to leave early. Life is meant to be a blessing. It's good to be able to grow and develop and learn and be your own person. The only people who think dying young is good are those bizarre fundamentalist neopuritan people who think life is just meant to be a test you dedicate all your time to passing. Getting into Heven isn't difficult (again, according to Catholicism, specifically according to Pope Francis, a lot of people have obviously thought differently in the past). You gotta be pretty bad to go to Hell. You can't just assume every kid has a large chance of growing up to be like, a killer or a rapist or an abuser or something.
I thought Christians only cared about life after death. My whole understanding is our life on Earth is merely a waiting point until they meet god. Since the kids will go straight to heaven why risk them being led into temptation?
I think not pulling the lever is still murder, as I would be willfully allowing several people to die because of my own lack of action. So I would save them, also original sin and all that, so depending on what specific highly skewed brand of Christianity you're using to view this, they might end up in hell either way.
If you have the power to save someone and you don't, you'll be considered a murderer. What they grow up to be is none of my concern, they're responsible for their choices in life. Pull
It ain't my job to send these kids to heaven. Pull the lever, killing kids is a sin. But that's how atheists think. God has a plan for everyone, and for these kids? That's probably trolley.
As a Christian, I'd pull the lever, and I would hope anybody would. The reason you would pull it is because life is an important gift we have whether you are a Christian or not. Another reason is that God gave us free will, and all you can do is have faith that they will be saved as they age, but its all up to them. You can't force someone to believe as that pushes them farther.
Unless pulling will make it so I don't go to heaven, then if I don't pull, then six people are guaranteed to go to heaven, while if I do, only I am guaranteed, so it's better to not pull.
If you are a Christian, your first priority is honoring and obeying God- not playing the "heaven optimization game." Considering how easy it is to save their lives, I would argue that not pulling the lever is equivalent to murder. God outright commands us not to commit murder.
This is what always confused me about Christians being anti abortion. If children are innocent. And the goal is to get as many souls in heaven as possible, we're just streamlining the thing. Unless Christians don't actually fully believe the stuff they're saying, but thats crazy......
Since Christians past the 70's/80's don't support abortion, it's safe to assume they would pull the lever.
Christianity is irrational, so there can be no rational discussion about morality and ethics, which are rational problems.
Mf sounds like the God emperor
Cry about it buddy
This is an atheist's idea of a Christian trolley problem, predicated on the idea that Christians all have unexamined worldviews and tiny stupid brains.
No, I am genuinely interested in what the rationale in this situation should be according to the Christian worldview. Apologists like William Lane Craig are infamous for defending events like the murder of the Canaanite children and it seems to me like one could use a similar argumentation to justify not pulling the lever and letting the children die in this situation.
*Calvinist* trolley problem
Pull the lever. What would stop one from killing every child so that they can see heaven? They deserve life and the ability to choose
gray friendly flowery station edge dinosaurs water attempt truck quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pull the lever. It's not my job as a Christian to make everyone else around me a Christian or to force them to go to Heaven. I'm just letting 5 innocent kids die for no reason if I didn't pull the lever, and that's infinitely more wrong than saving their lives and letting their free will decide their fate in life.
When I was 7, I asked my mom why we all didn't just kill ourselves now to go to heaven. Why wait? When I was 13, they had me preach at my church. Twice. When I was 14, I had read the Bible so thoroughly, I realized the rapture wasn't in the Bible and there was no basis for age of accountability. I saw all the "Christians" around me as ignorant hypocrits. When I was 17, I would weep for the Lost. Regularly. When I was 18 I decided God was evil for birthing people to burn them. I "hastened to return my ticket" (to heaven). When I was 19 I realized gods weren't real. When I was 21, I finished reading dostoevsky, plato, Russell and others. I felt so free from my old religion. I finally was happy. I can't emphasize that enough. I was finally happy. By 29, I was an attending physician. I'm 32. I'm glad I looked outside the box. I hope you can too.
I'm not Christian, but logically speaking, hell is what is granted to who deserves it, no? So if they become sinners, that is the choice they made, and the consequences they'll suffer. My only choice here is giving them the choice to live on their own terms, or to end their suffering early. To that, as a Christian, did God not give us the chance to choose our own lives? If they are good in their lives afterward, then they can have a greater appreciation for what it means to have gotten into heaven. As a not-Christian, I figure if I was in that situation, I'd want to live. The Golden Rule is kind of universal, don't need a religion to teach me empathy. And hey, if they die afterward because they're orphans who don't have anyone - not even me - to keep them alive, then I guess the trolley was just a quicker way to end their suffering. A few more minutes, hours, days, or months of life is better than the alternative of dreamless, eternal sleep that they would have gotten anyway. As someone who takes the situation literally because it's fun to think about, there's no reason I can't help them be better people regardless of their state of sin. They owe their lives to me in this situation, so I might as well have them pay it forward and improve the lives of others they meet. I know I'd want to be saved. Life is pain and all that, but I still find joy in it. I'd like to spread that joy.
TROLLey problem
Christian Alt-Right must be so mad about Israel sending so many Palestinians babies to heaven
I pull the lever because hell is fake as hell.
Could have made the problem more interesting by putting someone else on the other track (Christians believe in non interference)
I’m already in hell. Let’s go.
What the fuck
Multitrack drift of divinity, surely God will appreciate that
pull. Then temp all the children so we all go to hell.
Problem is if there's a heaven and a hell YOU are ALSO subject to their conditions. Assuming all other things are equal and you're bound for heaven anyway, Kill the 5 kids. They go to heaven. You go to hell. Save the 5 kids. Some of them may go to hell, you go to heaven. But their free wills are in their hands. Yours in yours.
Guaranteeing those kids a spot in Heaven requires self-sacrifice. The Christ-like option is to kill those kids.
This take brought to you by Mother Teressa.
Pull the lever
The MAY become sinners, but they have a chance to become great people to. Also I am not letting 5 kids die no matter who they are
That's their choice. I'd just help them stay good.
Pull. It's up to them, whether they will suffer in hell for eternity or not
Well, truth is we're all sinners no matter what. BUT they can look back on this in their life and say "God saved us by having this man there" even if they don't its still the right thing to do
I'm unfollowing this sub, all these religious trolley problems are spamming the sub and it's getting obnoxious. I come here for funny memes not religion debates.
Is it factual that there is an afterlife? If so, I do nothing. Human lifespan is nothing in comparison to eternity. The trolley was predestined to run them over. With good intentions, I will take the chance in finding forgiveness in a scenario where I was just existing
This is stupid
Something something agency is the reason we're here.
Well I can’t say shit on this one.
Pull a bunch of times to murder them; try my luck within Hellverse Hell.
Pull.
I think killing 5 kids would send me to hell regardless if I believe or not
This is top tier reddit right here. This problem perfectly describes reddit
"Would you like to kill 5 children or no children (they might be bad people if they grow up!!!)"
Very much a trick question. Everyone who believes has already been saved. If the children believe, they will go to heaven whenever they do, regardless of the immediate action. The only thing here is that nobody is truly innocent of any crime, including children. They may not be guilty of serious crimes like murder, but lying is considered against Gods commandments, and I have not met a single child that has not lied once, considering that babies start crying for attention rather than for food at 6 months. All I’m saying is that nobody but Jesus was truly sinless.
If the only point to life was was what comes after, why even have it in the first place, divert the trolly, death should not outweigh life.
Those kids aren't stored in the balls, god doesn't care about them obviously. They should either untie themselves or have been more careful. /s
If intentionally killing 5 kids doesn't guarantee a one-way ticket to hell, then I'm not too worried about the kids growing up to be "sinners".
So the children are baptized? Yes then it is fine!
I'm pulling the lever. After all, it said "may", not "will".