Bad to believe that children who die young are lucky?

[Sjoerd]

I read this on the Comment and Suggestions forum:

A forum member recently said:

"Truly lucky are young children that die soon after Baptism. For them this earthly life would be very short and salvation is assured."

This is one of the most obscene comments I've ever had the displeasure of reading, and more disturbing than any amount of swearing.

Are moderators allowed to "moderate" fanatical ideologies?

I know it's subjective, but if the entire team agreed that a certain comment is a simple display of fanaticism, I think they should be able to do something about it.

Many people may think of this comment as "profane".

Why would this be considered obscene? Not that I believe it, but if I was a parent and my child died, I would find this one of the most comforting things to believe.

[OnceConvinced]

It may be comforting to know they are in Heaven, but to say they are lucky to die young? That's the appalling factor I think. Nobody can be considered "lucky" not being able to get to experience life, especially if it's the only one we get. The death of a child is tragic and to even suggest they were lucky will be seen as appalling. It shows a lack of value for human life.

There has been discussion lately on what happens when a child dies young. Do they automatically go to Heaven? If so, then why would any loving person want them to live and risk eternal damnation by rejecting Christ? It's a horrible way to think and only a mentally disturbed person would really think that way, but yet if the bible is to be believed, it's not quite so unreasonable, is it? It's almost justifiable thinking. But it just shows how dangerous the teachings of the bible can be.

I think the disgust still lingers at any thought that a child is better off dead than living on this earth and I think Beto is expressing further disgust that life on earth is deemed to be considered a negative thing to many religious people.

[Beto]

Why would this be considered obscene? Not that I believe it, but if I was a parent and my child died, I would find this one of the most comforting things to believe.

If you tell a parent that lost a child not to worry or feel sad because that child would get to grow up in Heaven, what argument would you use to deter pessimistic parents, disillusioned about life, that simply wished to spare their children from all the suffering and "evil" in the world, from just killing their children? If one really believes in Heaven, what's the problem of killing children indiscriminately? A commandment? Suppose the love for one's child is so great one is willing to sacrifice one's "soul" to ensure that child gets to Heaven. Then what?

[Sjoerd]

I don't know... maybe my view of death is a bit different. When I am dead, I won't feel anything anymore. The grief and suffering is all on those who stay behind, because they will have to live without ever seeing me again, unless we meet in the afterlife, which isn't compatible with my kind of Christianity or their kind of atheism. And that's the real tragedy of death: having to continue your life without your loved one. Suicide isn't an option, you would just pass on the grief to the people who love you, which is selfish. Either I die before my girlfriend, and she would have to live with it, and I would consider myself lucky. Or she would die before me, and I would have to live with it, and she would be the lucky of our two. I dread dying young (I am 26) mostly for my parents' sakes. And, admittedly, I dread that I would realize that I was going to die and have the experience of running out of future, which seems extremely unpleasant.

Therefore, I wouldn't mind much an atomic bomb falling on my city (when my girlfriend is coming over here), because I and everyone I love will be dead and their loved ones too so there will not be so much grief (though I would pity those who survive or happen to be away and lose loved ones without dying themselves).

So, Christian or not, the reason for not killing your children is not being able to live with the the fact that you will never see them again. And, of course, realizing that you brought it upon yourself. And you WILL never see them again: if you believe in an afterlife, you will go to Hell for your act while they go to Heaven. On the other hand, if you know that they are gone and it wasn't your fault and you have to live with it anyway, it's comforting to realize that they will surely be in Heaven, not in Hell and not even in Purgatory to pay for their sins because they didn't commit any.

[Sjoerd]

unless we meet in the afterlife, which isn't compatible with my kind of Christianity or their kind of atheism

I just realized that this sentence can be grossly misunderstood... I mean that they don't believe in an afterlife and I don't believe it either.

[&r!3$&ng!3]

I think the disgust still lingers at any thought that a child is better off dead than living on this earth and I think Beto is expressing further disgust that life on earth is deemed to be considered a negative thing to many religious people.

But doesn't this thought (a child better of dead...) depend on how hard your life is? I mean I would think a child is better off dead if he's gonna grow up to be hated, lonely, depressive and stuff.... Only problem is, we wouldn't know how his or her life will turn out, so I guess we shouldn't think that way. But I think "disgust" is a rather rough word on this matter... esp for people who really really struggle with life.

I agree though, that lucky isn't the right word to use but... I don't think that life on earth is deemed to be considered a negative thing to many religious people. Life as a negative thing probably depends more on your emotional and psychological state of mind as opposed to your spiritual. Even for Christians who think that life is evil with the Devil and nonsense... God did create life, and stuff... so I don't think we'd really really view it as negative.

I don't know... maybe my view of death is a bit different. When I am dead, I won't feel anything anymore. The grief and suffering is all on those who stay behind, because they will have to live without ever seeing me again, unless we meet in the afterlife, which isn't compatible with my kind of Christianity or their kind of atheism. And that's the real tragedy of death: having to continue your life without your loved one. Suicide isn't an option, you would just pass on the grief to the people who love you, which is selfish. Either I die before my girlfriend, and she would have to live with it, and I would consider myself lucky. Or she would die before me, and I would have to live with it, and she would be the lucky of our two. I dread dying young (I am 26) mostly for my parents' sakes. And, admittedly, I dread that I would realize that I was going to die and have the experience of running out of future, which seems extremely unpleasant.

I kinda agree with your view of death... =) Though I really don't think that children would really agree to it as well. So it would be rather unfair to say it's a good thing for them to die (soon after baptism)... cuz they would want to continue living and... well... just be alive. While you (and I) don't mind dying in that sense, they might. And I don't think it's just the running out of future part that they might dislike....

[JoeyKnothead]

When taken as a way of comfort, this notion is not so bad, I guess. What I find wrong with it, it seems to take away all the promise that young life held.

[Sjoerd]

this thought (a child better of dead...)

Okay, if you state it as "better off dead", then I would find it offensive. As it is, you can consider a child lucky if it has died young and also lucky if it lives to experience all wonders of this life.

I kinda agree with your view of death... =) Though I really don't think that children would really agree to it as well. So it would be rather unfair to say it's a good thing for them to die (soon after baptism)... cuz they would want to continue living and... well... just be alive. While you (and I) don't mind dying in that sense, they might. And I don't think it's just the running out of future part that they might dislike....

Nice to find someone who agrees on death =)
But the rest of this is not so relevant if the child has already died... he/she doesn't want anything anymore (unless he/she is somehow discontent in Heaven) and the agony of dying is already past... in fact, if it would be a 4 yr old you could comfort him/her with Heaven, and mention that time passes really quickly in Heaven so that you wouldn't be separated for long.

When taken as a way of comfort, this notion is not so bad, I guess. What I find wrong with it, it seems to take away all the promise that young life held.

I agree. If the child has already died, then that promise has been taken away already, you just got to live with it, and this may help. To use it to deny that promise while it is still there is outright criminal.

[FinalEnigma]

The reason it is seen as obscene is because for most atheists life is a privilege. it is a joy. you get to experience all the wonderful things that life has to offer. to die as a baby would then be possibly the ultimate misfortune because you would miss out on all the joys and experiences you could have had.

From that perspective, the statement would be quite disgusting and obscene-akin to something like "people born without legs are lucky because they don't have to walk around their entire lives."

some people would beat you into the ground for making a statement like that-and personally, though I would disapprove, I wouldn't terribly blame them.

[Sjoerd]

From that perspective, the statement would be quite disgusting and obscene-akin to something like "people born without legs are lucky because they don't have to walk around their entire lives."

I see your point, but there is one big difference. People born without legs are suffering every day because they experience their physical limitation and live among people without this limitation. Dead people do not suffer anything.