Historically, this has not been an effective argument.
I think suicide bombers tend to think of the death of babies and other innocents as collateral damage, not an end in itself.
If it naturally follows, then you would think that in the course of human history, some sect, cult, religion etc would have gone on a baby-killing spree. And yet, here we are – it’s never happened. So either (a) no religious adherent in human history has ever been as logical as you; or (b) you’re not half as clever as you think you are.
Not being much of a mind-reader, I couldn’t say, though I don’t think it’s all unlikely that killing a baby infidel could be seen as a good thing to those murderous a-holes. Clearly it’s acceptable collateral damage, at any rate.
Actually, it appears that people tend to reconcile conflicts in their religion in favor of their personal preferences - which one presumes does not commonly include the killing of babies. I think that alone is enough to explain why your typical religious adherent doesn’t go on killing sprees. Though I’m not as sure as you are that it’s never happened. If it ever did, their fellow religious adherents would think they were just nuts anyway, deny the religious line of thinking, and report it accordingly. Also, I most religious I’ve seen put obedience on a higher pedestal than altruism anyway, so the ‘no killing’ rule would win out in that respect as well.
Also, I think that a lot of religious people don’t extrapolate much beyond what their scriptures and preachers tell them to think about their religion, and as noted, there’s apparently no scripture telling them to kill babies, at least not for that reason. (I don’t imagine a preacher would keep his job long if he preached infanticide, either.) And given the very idea is pretty reprehensible, I don’t imagine it crosses most of their minds even once without being immidiately discarded.
(That’s me saying that, yes, I am more logical than most religious people - though heck, as I’m a non-religious person I should get ‘logical’ by default. Plus of course I had to be more logical, since the alternate option of your false dillema is clearly false.)
According to Catholic doctrine, a saint is someone for whom we have some proof of their salvation and presence in heaven (the miracles come into play here.) Technically anyone in heaven is a saint, it is just that many of these people remain unrecognized.
Now, salvation admits one into heaven and cleanses one of his earthly sins - it does not make those sins disappear, nor does it make the consequences of them vanish.
Therefore, you can find numberless bad things many of the saints did. And all of these are only important to us, not to a God who has already forgiven them.
Please keep accusations of trolling out of GD.
[ /Moderating ]
That’s when you find out that the one true faith is…Mormonism
That’s right…Mormonism
The papal phone rings and when the pope answers it, it is Jesus. The pope says, i don’t understand, why are you using a telephone to talk to me. Jesus says, "Well, I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that I have now returned to Earth. . . "
“Thats GREAT!” exclaims the pope.
Jesus continues, “The bad news is I’m calling from Salt lake City.”
With that out of the way, I am closing this thread.
Two and a Half Inches of Fun, you are welcome to open a new thread on this topic that is phrased as a genuine debate. Setting up a scenario to demand that a limited number of posters respond to specific accusations might fly in the Pit, but it is not a Great Debate. (A discussion of the propriety of canonizing Pius IX or the actions of the RCC is a legitimate topic, but you have poisoned the well for this thread.)
[ /Moderating ]