A debate on christianity

Sutekh said:

I view debating such as this to be a waist of time. I also find it pointless to debate a religion such as Christianity even though some people may comment their own evidence and grips that they have on the religion. The only reason why I perhaps debated here was because of the subject "Satanism" being brought up, and also because of some of the intelligent and perhaps reasoning people such as Spockrates on RF. I primarily do not debate on any forums on RF.

Click to expand...

Spockrates said:

So a terrorist attacks a crowded public place with an assault rifle. A mother and father could run for cover and save themselves, but instead, they shield their child with their bodies and die in the attack.

Did they put themselves first? Did they do the unnatural thing?

Click to expand...

psychoslice said:

Yes I am more or less the same as you, I only give opinions, and try to stick with what is known, the unknown isn't worth debating, because its unknown.

Click to expand...

Iron Wizard said:

The parents sacrificing themselves to save their child is probably the one exception to that rule. While self preservation is almost always the prevailing drive, in a situation like that, where death is almost certainly eminent, species preservation, in some people, comes first, and the parents do what they can to save the child. I'm not saying that parents are obligated to do that, it's just instinct in some people.

Personally, if I had a child, and was in that situation, I'd probably put myself first. But then again, I'm not a parent. Only when someone is a parent can they know for sure what they would do in that situation. I'm just assuming.

Click to expand...

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

I doubt there's a real good answer to that scenario. Maybe, if others are around, it'd be better to sacrifice yourself for your child as a bystander can then take the child and get help. But let's say a bear in the forest is chasing you and there is no one else around. You sacrifice yourself to the bear, but what's the CHILD supposed to do? Hit it with its baby bottle? Both of you are going to die (most likely). However, the only one capable of having a snowball's chance of surviving and later procreating (again) is YOU.

Click to expand...

Iron Wizard said:

The parents sacrificing themselves to save their child is probably the one exception to that rule. While self preservation is almost always the prevailing drive, in a situation like that, where death is almost certainly eminent, species preservation, in some people, comes first, and the parents do what they can to save the child. I'm not saying that parents are obligated to do that, it's just instinct in some people.

Personally, if I had a child, and was in that situation, I'd probably put myself first. But then again, I'm not a parent. Only when someone is a parent can they know for sure what they would do in that situation. I'm just assuming.

Click to expand...

Spockrates said:

So it seems we have an intriguing matter to discuss. You say the motivation for one sacrificing herself for another sharing her genes is preservation of the species. But I wonder if that is actually so. A parent who runs for safety may lose one child, but live to create several more. So isn't the latter option more likely to preserve the species, as far as she is concerned? If it is, then what other incentive might motivate her self sacrifice?

Click to expand...

Iron Wizard said:

"Instincts" themselves aren't intelligent beings who can think or reason. They work in a predefined way.

This is a similar concept to the "flight or flight" response. In one situation, it might be a better species preservation tactic for one to sacrifice themselves for the good of their child, but in another, the parent would be better off running and saving themselves. That's why some people would go with option A and others would go with option B. When there is more diversity in the instincts, there's a higher chance of a greater amount of people surviving.

Click to expand...