Are afterlife beliefs inherently dangerous?

12 Apr

Here is a question I’ve posed to many a Christian about afterlife beliefs. If you believe that if you are good, you go to heaven (good works lead to eternal reward in afterlife) and that if you are bad you go to hell (bad works lead to eternal punishment in an afterlife) and that all children go to heaven (lack of works of any kinds = innocence and therefore being innocent and free of good or bad works they go to heaven) then isn’t that very dangerous?

Here is why.

We all agree sacrificing yourself for the good of many others is good right? Like if I push a woman out of the way of a truck and get turned into chef boy-r-dee as a result, it was noble of me to save her by sacrificing my life.

So, suppose I take a chainsaw to a kindergarten, and turn the entire place into a bloody charnel house. I slaughter the kids, and ensure my place in hell due to my evil deed. However, I did a noble thing, because I sacrificed my place in Heaven so that these innocent children get to go to heaven. I ensure their place since I kill them before they have done any wrong or sin. And we all agree Heaven is a better place than earth yes? So I save them also from a life of possible suffering etc.

https://i0.wp.com/www.pixeljoint.com/files/icons/full/homer_chainsaw.gif

Advertisements

23 Responses to “Are afterlife beliefs inherently dangerous?”

  1. angel_one April 12, 2006 at 6:15 pm #

    I don’t think all religions consider children to be innocent. Isn’t there that whole “born with sin” thing?

    • bboyneko April 12, 2006 at 6:20 pm #

      so a 5 year old goes to hell?

      • angel_one April 12, 2006 at 6:32 pm #

        Dunno. i don’t believe in hell. 😉

  2. dura_luxe April 12, 2006 at 6:17 pm #

    I like this, but I think any Christian would say that murder is a sin, so it negates the saved babyness.
    I guess this is why suicide is a “sin”. Otherwise, everyone would just kill themselves to get to heaven, and no one would be around to give lots of money to God.

    • bboyneko April 12, 2006 at 6:21 pm #

      Yes but the lesser evil (murder) should be negated by the greater good (ensuring 30 children go to heaven)
      Its like saying the sin of suicide (pushing a woman out of the way, knowing id get killed by the truck) is not negated by the good of saving her life.

      • dura_luxe April 12, 2006 at 6:39 pm #

        But of course, what a JW would respond to that would be: “Only Jehovah can judge for sure. Whatever he decides will be just.”
        You don’t have to deal with inconsistencies. It’s like answering every at work with: “Sorry, it’s not my department”.

    • bboyneko April 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm #

      also:
      “My children, Michael and Alex, are with our Heavenly Father now, and I know that they will never be hurt again. As a mom, that means more than words could ever say. . . My children deserve to have the best, and now they will. . . I have put my total faith in God, and he will take care of me.”
      [Susan Smith, who drowned her two children, in her confession letter, Nov. 1994]

  3. airplane_stars April 12, 2006 at 6:41 pm #

    this is all according to christian beliefs and don’t necessarily reflect what i believe:
    1. killing children isn’t a sacrifice. the killer isn’t sacrificing anything, including his place in heaven, by killing children. according to christian beliefs, he, himself, can still get into heaven by repenting.
    2. at least in catholicism, children aren’t completely innocent. in fact, the only religion i know of that says children are always 100% innocent is the church of latter-day saints. anyways, in catholicism, the belief is that everyone is born with original sin. if the child is baptized, he will go straight to heaven after you kill him. if he is unable to confess to his sins or hasn’t yet received the sacrament, he will also go to heaven. if he has committed sin, though, he will spend time in purgatory before heaven.
    3. Saving a person’s life is noble, but not rewarded in Christian religion. It’s not a life for a life or an eye for an eye. You must live a complete, full, good life in order to enter into heaven.

    • bboyneko April 12, 2006 at 9:18 pm #

      Afterlife beleifs are dangerous. When you have any religion that teaches that heathens should die or be punished by god (heathens meaning unbeleivers) and that people who do good deeds are eternally rewarded in the afterlife, you remove the fear of death from them and give them supernatural justification for mass murder.
      Flight 93 Transcript:
      http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412061hijack1.html

      • airplane_stars April 12, 2006 at 10:05 pm #

        I think you’re placing blame here. Idologies are frightening at times, but it’s the psychotic, megalomaniacs who carry out ridiculous quests in the name of a certain cause that give the cause a bad name. I don’t think all those people in 9/11 were killed simply because terrorists were promised a heaven full fo virgins. I think they were brainwashed since birth to destroy things. Combine that with terrorist training and the leadership of a man who HATES america and HATES the bush family, and you have an evil empire.
        Did religion have something to do with 9/11? Certainly. But, i think politics holds the trump card there. It’s so easy to blame religion on something that was obviously caused by underlying problems.

  4. blackdave April 12, 2006 at 6:43 pm #

    lexical priority
    The problem with your logic is that you’re thinking that you have the power to judge and calculate whether your place in hell is worth 20 or whatever spots in heaven. Thats is playing god and therefore inherently wrong.
    Moreseo, there is a lexical priority of the 10 commandments and other concept of “natural law” to any other view of justice and utility, such that you wouldn’t be able to violate “thou shalt not kill” in order to give people slot in heaven without doing damage
    Moreso, you’re not thinking of the externalties you cause in the form of pain and suffering of others.
    There may be many parents and relatives who will suffer and will feel negative impact from such “mercy” killings, and you may cost them their spot in heaven by doing so.
    Overall, the line of questioning you’re pursuing is interesting, but primitive and underdeveloped. You cost benefit analysis is not only wrong if you believe in any sort of natural law priority / lexical priority of commandments, but its also short sighted in believe that killing someone only affects the life of the person you kill.

    • bboyneko April 12, 2006 at 6:48 pm #

      Re: lexical priority
      The lesser evil that prevents the greater evil from occuring is good. The lesser good that prevents the greater good from occuring is evil.

  5. son_of_ottie April 12, 2006 at 7:49 pm #

    The point is moot because don’t we ALL know, deep inside, that THIS is the ONLY life we can count on? Else, we wouldn’t need to keep convincing ourselves with “worship” over and over. The eucharist is a very elaborate way to cross one’s fingers.
    Religion is all superstition. And just cause the guys on Ghost Hunters find “ghosts” occasionally does NOT mean there’s an afterlife.

    • missmisty April 13, 2006 at 7:50 pm #

      Yeah, but what about Psychic At Large??
      She sees ghosts around everyone.
      Irrefutable proof.

  6. Anonymous April 13, 2006 at 1:02 am #

    Re: lexical priority
    But you’re missing the point
    1) its not necessarily a lesser evil. You’re believing that killing said children only affects the children. There are people who born the kids who’s lives/immortal souls you’re fuckign with.
    2) the whole point of supreme law in religion is that its supreme. Lexical priority, you can’t break any of the said 10 commandments or other such basic things in the good book in order to create some greater good of “sending” children to heaven. The ends justifying the means is something that most religions don’t go for or else whats the point of supreme law.
    Think Kant . . . they Categorical Imperative versus the Hypothetical imperative. That also goes towards this concept. Look it up on Wikipedia if need be.

  7. capt_groovy April 13, 2006 at 6:57 am #

    Hello again. Not to be impeding on your journal again, but I couldn’t pass up a chance on a religious debate.
    I’d just like to ask this. With the “understanding” That we as humans are logical critical thinkers. Would society send me to jail for killing 13 possible furture rapist, before they got the chance to rape?
    I think that I’d be put into jail faster than you can say “grab your ankles you’re my bitch”

    • bboyneko April 13, 2006 at 12:15 pm #

      how can you prove them ‘future’ rapists? Also in either scenario youd likely get the death penalty /jail;.

      • blackdave April 13, 2006 at 1:20 pm #

        haha
        Haven’t you seen minority report? LOL.

      • son_of_ottie April 13, 2006 at 9:13 pm #

        Yeah see, we’re talkin’ religion here pal! Not some sci-fi mumbo-jumbo that can’t be proven and…ummm…wait a minute here…

  8. Anonymous April 27, 2006 at 2:31 am #

    Christianity
    Hi,
    I hope this will clear up what appears to be some confusion about the afterlife.
    What you’re saying, in essence, makes sense. Except that the true message of real Christianity is not that good works get you to heaven. That’s utterly false. After all, when would your good works be enough to get you a spot in heaven? The answer is never. All people are born with a sinful nature – Ever since Adam ate the apple. Man’s sin needed to be payed for, so God sacrificed his son, who bore all sin. That makes all men righteous to live with God if they will believe in Christ, confess their sin, and accept his free gift of eternal life. Going to hell is the result of rejecting Christ and the gift. It’s simply eternal separation from God.
    As for killing children… The killer would, in fact, have caused the children to go straight to heaven, because they are not old enough to understand sin and salvation. That’s the way it works, and there’s nothing illogical about it. But killing children is also utterly against the Bible, which is the source of truth for true Christians. There’s no self-sacrifice here. The killer would be dealing with some heavy consequences. And if by chance the killer wanted to get to heaven, he’d have to sincerely recognize that his actions were absolutely wrong, ask Christ for the forgiveness He offers, pertaining to his sin, and accept eternal life.
    Thanks for your time,
    Aaron

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: