Originally posted by Rajk999
A.

But you are assuming that you fully understand all the dynamics involved in the 50 getting salvation. Nobody knows for sure how death, resurrection, hell, salvation works.

It is true that there is no reason to take matters into your own hands if you don't know where souls are going.

However, as shown in this thread, there are some who DO claim to believe in a standard fate for the souls of aborted fetuses - my argument is aimed primarily at them.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1. This objection is a valid reason not to actually go out and start harvesting fetuses, but does little to address the philosophical side of the dilemma.
2. It need not be a dogmatic point, but it sounds like they believe souls arise at conception to me. This one doesn't do much to escape the dilemma.
3. Jesus' plan has far less than a 100% success ra to hell. Even a marginal heavenly experience is still light-years ahead of that.
8. Why?

1. If so, there is no dilemma.
2. Theologians have disputed it for centuries.
3. Obviously a Christian must follow Christ, not you. That should be obvious.
4. A Catholic must accept this. You are right, it is dogmatic. Hence there is no dilemma. I do not wish to enter a debate about means and ends. It need only be said that a Catholic can never tolerate evil as a means to good. In the case of a burglary, it would be wrong to kill the burglars as a means to protecting the family. However, if the burglars died, unintentionally as the result of a self-defense (not deliberately lethal), then their deaths are no longer the means.
5. No. A Christian would obviously want to do God's will.
6. Most Christians believe that everyone can be saved, whatever their religious persuasion. You could be saved for all you know, accordingly.
7. Perhaps divine justice.
8. There would not be much of a body to resurrect.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Take a group of 51 people.

Which is the morally preferable result:
A) one goes to hell; the other 50 go to heaven.
B) one goes to heaven; the other 50 go to hell.

By analogy, the one is a 'member' of the body, and the other 50 are the 'whole body'.

The morally preferable result is that each chooses his or her own destiny. It's not a math problem.

Originally posted by Conrau K
1. If so, there is no dilemma.
2. Theologians have disputed it for centuries.
3. Obviously a Christian must follow Christ, not you. That should be obvious.
4. A Catholic must accept this. You are right, it is dogmatic. Hence there is no dilemma. I do not wish to enter a debate about means and ends. It need only be said that a Catholic can never tolera ...[text shortened]... accordingly.
7. Perhaps divine justice.
8. There would not be much of a body to resurrect.

1. There is still the annoying possibility that abortion is morally justified the grounds stated. Once they answer "I don't know", they can't rule it out. It's non-trivial, too. Cold comfort at best.
2. Very well - for those who do believe it, it does nothing to escape the dilemma.
3. Nobody follows Christ all the time, or does everything he says. And now, I've provided them with an even better reason not to on this issue.
4. Dogma is a poor substitute for critical thinking. It ought to be possible to be a catholic without checking your reasoning skills at the church door. Also, you lose points for claiming not to want to debate means and ends, yet giving an example that attempts to do so. Make up your mind!
5. A "Christian" is just a follower of christ's teachings. There is no guarantee that they agree with everything in the bible.
6. Still, if they were asked to guess a percentage of how many on earth would be saved, I doubt it would be very high. If they make it over 50%, one wonders why we need the church in the first place.
7. Still, seems strange to base the relationship of 100 gazillion years on that infinitesimal sliver of time spent on earth.
8. OK - but how important is that compared to the fate of the soul? And couldn't they be given a new body in heaven? I thought the saved got those.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
The morally preferable result is that each chooses his or her own destiny. It's not a math problem.

Completely disagree - if free choice just allows people to 'choose' hell, then it would be better not to have a choice at all.

If half the human race just ends up in hell for all time, then God's creation has been nothing more than a failed experiment. What a deplorable and embarrassing result.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
1. There is still the annoying possibility that abortion is morally justified the grounds stated. Once they answer "I don't know", they can't rule it out. It's non-trivial, too. Cold comfort at best.
2. Very well - for those who do believe it, it does nothing to escape the dilemma.
3. Nobody follows Christ all the time, or does everything he says. And ...[text shortened]... soul? And couldn't they be given a new body in heaven? I thought the saved got those.

I will not discuss this further. You are obviously cranky and unreasonable. Also, you lose points for claiming not to want to debate means and ends. I guess you didn't read the section in which I added 'it needed only be said...'. A person should be allowed to briefly describe ends and means only as much is necessary without giving a comprehensive definition of the terms.

Originally posted by buckky
A friend of mine is a very strong Catholic, and very apposed to abortion, and truely thinks it's the crime of the century that abortion is legal. I asked him what happened to the aborted babies, and he said he feels they would go straight to Heaven ,because they had no sin to damn them to Hell. I did not get into the original sin idea. Would that not be a rea ...[text shortened]... ple don't have funerals for a miscarriage? It seems like the thing to do if a baby just died.

Do these scriptures get ignored completely and instead ones follow some unscriptually founded beliefs that are not even mentioned in the Bible? Wow!!!!!
Eccl 9:5,6,10.....Ps 146:4
A question....If someone dies that is a good person like Lazurus for example, if fact Jesus called him his friend and even wept when hearing that he had died, would not such a good man go to heaven after he died, if that is a fact as many believe? Then if he would be in heaven since he was dead, why did Jesus resurrect him? Would not heaven seemingly be a better place to be and with Jesus knowing now that Lazuras would have to die again someday and with Jesus knowing that he himself was going to die very soon to fulfill Bible prophesy? It seems he would just wait to see him in heaven...
The Bible over and over shows that when your dead, your dead no matter what age you are. Not one scripture to support anything different in any way. No Limbo or anything even close...

Originally posted by galveston75
Do these scriptures get ignored completely and instead ones follow some unscriptually founded beliefs that are not even mentioned in the Bible? Wow!!!!!
Eccl 9:5,6,10.....Ps 146:4
A question....If someone dies that is a good person like Lazurus for example, if fact Jesus called him his friend and even wept when hearing that he had died, would not suc ...[text shortened]... . Not one scripture to support anything different in any way. No Limbo or anything even close...

The Bible over and over shows that when your dead, your dead no matter what age you are. Not one scripture to support anything different in any way. No Limbo or anything even close...

You will have to explain again how then Moses and Elijah appear next to Jesus at the transfiuration. That Moses died is confirmed in Deuteronomy. In fact, it is integral to the story that Moses does die since he was never permitted to see God's face. But in death he was finally granted that privilege. And as I said earlier, Jesus explicitly says that he will be with the criminal in paradise.

A question....If someone dies that is a good person like Lazurus for example, if fact Jesus called him his friend and even wept when hearing that he had died, would not such a good man go to heaven after he died, if that is a fact as many believe? Then if he would be in heaven since he was dead, why did Jesus resurrect him?

According to mainstream Chrristian soteriology (the theology of salvation), there was no heaven until the crucifixion when Jesus died and descended into hell. Only in offering himself as a sacrifice, could Jesus redeem humanity from its original sin. Until then, no one could be fit to enter God's presense (indeed, Leviticus spells out quite explicitly the consequences that befall people who enter God's tent when they are ritually unclean).

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The Bible over and over shows that when your dead, your dead no matter what age you are. Not one scripture to support anything different in any way. No Limbo or anything even close...

You will have to explain again how then Moses and Elijah appear next to Jesus at the transfiuration. That Moses died is confirmed in Deuteronomy. In fact, it is inte ...[text shortened]... tly the consequences that befall people who enter God's tent when they are ritually unclean).[/b]

All parables.. If not then the Bible contridicts itself. Please explain that.

Originally posted by galveston75
All parables.. If not then the Bible contridicts itself. Please explain that.

How could the transifuration or the crucifixion be considered parables? These are written in a precisely historiographical style, with dates, with circumstances given and fitted into a chronological narrative. Couldn't it just be that your interpretation of peripheral quotes from Ecclesiastes and other minor book is wrong? Possibly the author of Ecclesiastes is simply writing in a hyperbolic and tragic vein to highten the sense of lamentation about the vanity of the world. It would be well to consider Ecclesiastes 12: 7 which seems to suggest that there is a soul which continues to exist after death.

Originally posted by galveston75
All parables.. If not then the Bible contridicts itself. Please explain that.

All parables have a literal meaning and a spiritual meaning. Readers can easily understand the literal or earthly meaning because its rooted in reality.

What is the literal meaning of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I will not discuss this further. You are obviously cranky and unreasonable. Also, you lose points for claiming not to want to debate means and ends. I guess you didn't read the section in which I added 'it needed only be said...'. A person should be allowed to briefly describe ends and means only as much is necessary without giving a comprehensive definition of the terms.

I think the argument is just too brutal for people to face. Far easier to make personal attacks than deal with it. A sad attempt to save some face on your part.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I think the argument is just too brutal for people to face. Far easier to make personal attacks than deal with it. A sad attempt to save some face on your part.

Why would I need to face it? I'm not Christian. I am reconciled to the notion of my inevitable obliteration. And I was not the one to begin with the personal attacks anyway.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Why would I need to face it?

You tell me. You're the one who chose to try - at least at first - to address it. You obviously needed to on some level.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You tell me. You're the one who chose to try - at least at first - to address it. You obviously needed to on some level.

Namely because I think it a pathetic argument. Not because I 'need to face'.