What Would Jesus Do?

[myth-one.com]

Today is June 20th 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the murders of five innocent children. Had they lived, Noah would be 18 years of age, John would be 16, Paul 14, Luke 13, and Mary 11. Instead, the Yates children, having died in their innocent or sinless years, are presently and eternally with God in heaven -- thus avoiding the possibility of eternal torment in hellfire had they lived past their innocent years.

This "Christian" theology was used by Andrea Yates to justify the murder of her children. Andrea told psychiatrist Philip Resnick she was failing as a mother and believed she had to kill the children to keep them from going to hell. "These were their innocent years. God would take them up." She is not alone in acting on this false theology -- others have used this method of certain salvation for their children in the past.

Christian pastors rushed to their pulpits proclaiming that the deceased children are indeed in Heaven -- thus affirming that the theology is true and correct.

Question: Will any Christian ever be concerned that "Christian" theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children?

To date the answer to the above question has been an overwhelmingly silent "No!"

So let's soften the question somewhat and see if any Christian can answer "Yes" or "No" to the following questions:

Question one: Should Christianity be content with the fact that it's theology is used to justify the murders of innocent children?

Question two: If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

Would God create such a system?

What Would Jesus Do?

[Moses Yoder]

Question one: Should Christianity be content with the fact that it's theology is used to justify the murders of innocent children??

Christianity would never approve of someone who intentionally twisted theology to serve their own selfish purposes. Christians would not approve of people who read the scripture that says "Judas hung himself" and then went to the scripture that says "go thou and do likewise" as an excuse to commit suicide. Murder and suicide are sins according to Christian theology. I believe there are many people today who use the Bible for their own selfish gain, and someday they will pay for it.

Question two: If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

The same thing can be asked of atheist ideals. It does not matter what the theology is or where it comes from, it is possible to misuse it. If we give a baby a bath and the water becomes dirty, it stands to reason that the baby is dirty because the water is touching it, thus the baby must be flushed down the drain along with the bath water. If you don't agree with this, then you must agree taht good theology should not necessarily be thrown out because someone has misused it for their own selfish gain.

[myth-one.com]

Question one: Should Christianity be content with the fact that it's theology is used to justify the murders of innocent children??

Christianity would never approve of someone who intentionally twisted theology to serve their own selfish purposes.

Where did she twist any theology?

She understood the false theology exactly as she was taught it. Clergy agreed strongly that she succeeded in sending her children to heaven. All know and believe the false theology that deceased innocent children immediately go to heaven for eternity upon their deaths.

Question two: If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

. . . good theology should not necessarily be thrown out because someone has misused it for their own selfish gain.

This is not good theology!

But let's suppose that it is "good" as virtually all Christians claim.

Now let me rephrase question 2:

Question two: If good Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

You seem to say "yes"?

If the theology is "good" -- then shouldn't acting on that theology also be "good?"

Should Christian parents not be concerned about the "eternal fate" of their children?

[Moses Yoder]

Question one: Should Christianity be content with the fact that it's theology is used to justify the murders of innocent children??

Christianity would never approve of someone who intentionally twisted theology to serve their own selfish purposes.

Where did she twist any theology?

She understood the false theology exactly as she was taught it. Clergy agreed strongly that she succeeded in sending her children to heaven. All know and believe the false theology that deceased innocent children immediately go to heaven for eternity upon their deaths.

Question two: If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

. . . good theology should not necessarily be thrown out because someone has misused it for their own selfish gain.

This is not good theology!

But let's suppose that it is "good" as virtually all Christians claim.

Now let me rephrase question 2:

Question two: If good Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

You seem to say "yes"?

If the theology is "good" -- then shouldn't acting on that theology also be "good?"

Should Christian parents not be concerned about the "eternal fate" of their children?

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand? If you look up those words in the dictionary it might give you a clue.

Do you consider the Unabomber Manifesto to be sound atheistic ideology? If this is not a good example of excellent ideals, why are we continuing to allow it to exist? It is available to everyone via the internet, even 6 year old children.

I can understand your desire to want to control other people and limit their freedom. Even Christians struggle with this self centered impulse.

[myth-one.com]

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?

That's why Andrea Yates is one of the greatest Christian martyrs of our generation!

She acted on Christian theology to save her children, although she (incorrectly) believed she would be condemned to burn in hellfire eternally for her crimes.

You seemingly believe that innocent children going to heaven upon their death is "good" theology.

If so, why do you dodge the following question?

If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

A simply yes or no will suffice.

[kayky]

Andrea Yates was mentally ill when she murdered her children, so whatever justification she gave is irrelevant.

[myth-one.com]

Andrea Yates was mentally ill when she murdered her children, so whatever justification she gave is irrelevant.

Why would a mentally ill person have to justify anything?

What mental illness causes one to believe that deceased innocent children go to heaven and spend eternity there with God?

Christianity is the source of that belief. Do you dispute that fact?

Is Christianity a mental illness?

Or did the constant unnecessary worry about the salvation of her five children cause her mental illness?

In her case, which came first -- Christianity or mental illness?

Mrs. Yates informed psychiatrist, Dr. Park Dietz, that at the time of the killings she was praying that her four sons would go to heaven. Apparently she was not certain that all of the boys were still "in their innocent years." However, she had no concern about six-month old Mary, because "she was the most innocent of all of them."

Pathetically sad -- but Christian.

[Moses Yoder]

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" do you not understand?

That's why Andrea Yates is one of the greatest Christian martyrs of our generation!

She acted on Christian theology to save her children, although she (incorrectly) believed she would be condemned to burn in hellfire eternally for her crimes.

You seemingly believe that innocent children going to heaven upon their death is "good" theology.

If so, why do you dodge the following question?

If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

A simply yes or no will suffice.

Thanks for the reply, but I did not dodge your question. I responded with this question. If atheist ideology can be used by the Unabomber to kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, can that ideology be good? The answer is of course it can. The ideology or theology itself has nothing to do with how it is interpreted by various people. The character of the people interpreting it determine how it is used. The question you are really asking is "Can we somehow find some grounds to make Christianity illegal?" The reason you are asking that is apparently the type of character you have wants to rule people and limit their freedom. That answer is the simplest yes I can justify.

You claim Andrea Yates to be the greatest Christian martyr of our time. I myself never heard of her until you started posting about her. I would like to see some evidence of your claim that she is the greatest Christian martyr of our generation. The greatest Christian martyr I know is Daniel Barbier.

[myth-one.com]

If Christian theology can be used to justify the murder of innocent children -- can that theology be correct?

A simply yes or no will suffice.

Thanks for the reply, but I did not dodge your question. I responded with this question. If atheist ideology can be used by the Unabomber to kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, can that ideology be good? The answer is of course it can.

I'll guess that's a "Yes."

So the theology of God's Church can successfully be used to justify the murder of innocents (That is: "I sent them to heaven before they were able to sin"); while God commands mankind not to kill.

I agree that this is the present state of affairs with the vast majority of Christians. The murder of innocents is simply a periodic unintended consequence of the church business.

The ideology or theology itself has nothing to do with how it is interpreted by various people. The character of the people interpreting it determine how it is used.

I disagree here. Most people blindly follow the teachings of their pastors and church hierarchy. Every Christian denomination strongly contends that their theology is supported by the God inspired scriptures.

So let's look at fictional Christian Church Alpha, which teaches that all mankind is born with an immortal soul which must spend eternity somewhere. Alpha teaches that all believers in Christ spend eternity in heavenly paradise, while the immortal souls of all nonbelievers are reunited with an incorruptible physical body which is eternally tortured in hellfire. The one exception is sinless children who perish before reaching an age where they understand right from wrong. These get a free pass to Heaven.

Assume that a female member of Church Alpha fervently believes the theology she has been taught from her youth by this Church. She now has five young children and life is difficult. It seems that the children constantly do things that God would not like. The oldest at age seven is certainly near the age of accountability at which time suffering eternally in hellfire becomes a distinct possibility. Mom suffers from low self esteem, believing she is not a good mother. She also suffers from post partum depression and perhaps other mental problems. She lives in constant fear of where the children will spend eternity, and soon the fate of the eldest will be upon him. What to do?

Anyway, mom murders all five, claiming she did so to send them to heaven for eternity. Church Alpha proclaims that she succeeded.

In regards to any responsibility of Church Alpha in this matter, I see two possibilities:

First Possibility: If Church Alpha can prove with quoting of appropriate scripture that their theology is indeed supported by the scriptures -- then they bear no responsibility. In this case, the murder of innocents is simply a consequence of the Christian religion as designed by God.

Second Possibility: If Church Alpha cannot prove with quoting of appropriate scripture that their theology is indeed supported by the scriptures -- then they should be help responsibility as accomplices to murder. They erred in their teaching, their teaching caused deaths and misery, and they should be held accountable.

The question you are really asking is "Can we somehow find some grounds to make Christianity illegal?"

I'm a Christian. Why would I want to make Christianity illegal?

You claim Andrea Yates to be the greatest Christian martyr of our time. I myself never heard of her until you started posting about her. I would like to see some evidence of your claim that she is the greatest Christian martyr of our generation.

Although Mrs. Yates was and remains a Christian, she thought she would face eternity in the fires of hell for her crimes. Can you imagine a worst fate? A trillion trillion trillion years from now she will still be screaming in the fires of hell. She spared her five children from this possibility. She also ruined her remaining few years of life on earth. But that's nothing compared to what she felt awaited her in the afterlife. She gained one thing -- freedom from the fear of her children possibly facing the same eternal fate.

Church Alpha should place her image in their stain glass windows! I cannot imagine a greater martyr.

If atheist ideology can be used by the Unabomber to kill hundreds of innocent bystanders, can that ideology be good? The answer is of course it can. The ideology or theology itself has nothing to do with how it is interpreted by various people. The character of the people interpreting it determine how it is used.

Laymen have no choice in interpreting religious theology. Those disagreeing with the Church are called heretics and are ostracized or expelled. Atheists do not believe in an afterlife. Although one might be persecuted severely here in this life, that is trivial in comparison to the eternity which Mrs. Yates believed she faced.

The greatest Christian martyr I know is Daniel Barbier.

Was his suffering equivalent to everlasting burning in fire and brimstone?

[Moses Yoder]

Laymen have no choice in interpreting religious theology. Those disagreeing with the Church are called heretics and are ostracized or expelled.

You make some good points, and I apologize for not addressing all of them. I do so based simply on my available time.

I have been taught, by the pastors I have sat under, that I am responsible for my own soul. If Andrea felt she had no responsibility for her own soul, why would she believe she was going to hell when she died? The Bible says somehwere "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." In a few places in the NT it instructs us to read the Bible for ourselves, warns us of false teachers, etc. ad nauseum. Which is better; to be called a heretic then ostracized and expelled (Daniel Barbier experienced all three of those in Romania in the 80's) or to go to hell for eternity?

In reading and studying your position I have come to the conclusion that you are correct. If the majority of parents started killing their children because of their theology, then the theology should be changed. Even if we had say a thousand cases in a year. Here in the US, people use guns to kill thousands of people per year, and guns have not yet been outlawed. And you want to outlaw and force people to change their viewpoint because one person out of 7 billion went nuts and killed her children. If this were the normal Christian behavior, then you're right; all Christians should be eliminated in the gas chambers, some of which are probably still functional in Germany.

What flavor of Christian are you?