PDA

View Full Version : Religion: What's better? Saving your own soul or trying to save others'?



Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:43 PM
So within the christian framework at least, there's a moral emphasis placed on selflesness, self-sacrifice, and loving others as your self or greater. Much of Christ's teachings involved putting others before yourself.

However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?

Say someone told you, if you sign some paper saying you forfeit your place in heaven but 5 former unbelievers would be saved, would you do it?

Would that be a morally good action?

Speedy
10-03-2010, 12:48 PM
Christians are responsible only for thier own soul and cannot save the souls of others no matterhow much they would like to.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:49 PM
Clearly they cannot flip the switch themselves, but there is a moral burden placed on Christians to try to spread the Good News.

I don't know of any Christian who would claim to be able to ssave someone themselves, but rather they like to say they can plant a few seeds.

Speedy
10-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Christians only spread the word, they are not under any obligation to make anyone accept it, unlike say, Muslims.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Well as far as I know it's impossible to make someone accept something, however let's assume some smart-ass atheists, 5 of them, tell you nthat if you sign a paper containing every blaspheme and a formal renunciation of your faith, that they will go to church, and 3 of them become saved, is that a morally right action?

Sonnabend
10-03-2010, 12:55 PM
Since you have never served anyone other than yourself, have never served anywhere with the intent of helping others, have made no sacrifices, and have no intention of doing anything for anyone other than yourself, the question is academic.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:55 PM
It doesn't really matter how we frame it, I get that a Christian can't force someone to be saved, but if there was a situation where you had to choose between your own salvation and the salvation of others, what would you choose?

What is the Christian thing to do?

Sonnabend
10-03-2010, 12:57 PM
It doesn't really matter how we frame it, I get that a Christian can't force someone to be saved, but if there was a situation where you had to choose between your own salvation and the salvation of others, what would you choose?

Seeing as you dont give a rat fuck for anyone except yourself, all you ever say is "gimme gimme", whatever answer you were given would be meaningless.

Speedy
10-03-2010, 01:03 PM
What is the Christian thing to do?

Seeing how Christ sacrificed himself for you as an individual, saving you own soul is paramount,

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:16 PM
Seeing how Christ sacrificed himself for you as an individual, saving you own soul is paramount,

I thought the sacrifice was for everyone ever, not for me personally.

Speedy
10-03-2010, 01:17 PM
I thought the sacrifice was for everyone ever, not for me personally.

The sacrifice was for everyone to be able to choose as an individual.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 01:25 PM
I thought the sacrifice was for everyone ever, not for me personally.

It was done for you personally, had you been the only person to except, it still would have been done for you.
Think like a person Wei not a group!

Apache
10-03-2010, 01:38 PM
I thought the sacrifice was for everyone ever, not for me personally.

Why do you even speak about something that you have no clue about? that statement alone, shows you have NO understanding about Christians or faith.

Apache
10-03-2010, 01:39 PM
It was done for you personally, had you been the only person to except it still would have been done for you.
Think like a person Wei not a group!

Weewee is borg, tied to the hive-mind :rolleyes:

FlaGator
10-03-2010, 02:37 PM
It doesn't really matter how we frame it, I get that a Christian can't force someone to be saved, but if there was a situation where you had to choose between your own salvation and the salvation of others, what would you choose?

What is the Christian thing to do?

Only one person has the capability of making that choice and He already made it.

Odysseus
10-03-2010, 04:49 PM
Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion since Roman times, so our obligation is not to save anyone else, but simply obey the laws of God. Christianity does proselytize, but does not force conversions. It's sort of like the old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Muslims take that a few steps further, believing that you can lead a horse to water, and that if he doesn't drink of his own free will, you can behead him throw the head in the water, where it can't help but get wet.

Nubs
10-03-2010, 04:54 PM
Christianity is based on individual sallvation. There is no such thing as collective salvation. Your salvation is between you and God. Kind of like spiritual HIPPA.

wilbur
10-03-2010, 04:55 PM
However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?


This is why I think Christian morality isn't actually morality at all. Its about gaining reward, avoiding punishment or seeking approval... none of which really have anything to do with morality at all.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 05:01 PM
This is why I think

No Wilbur you don't think or you wouldn't be saying things like this!

hampshirebrit
10-03-2010, 05:09 PM
No Wilbur you don't think or you wouldn't be saying things like this!

Sorry, but Willie is making a reasonable hypothesis here, one which I have also made in the past.

Let's turn it into a question.

Where do you think your morality comes from? Are you moral because it is innate in humanity to attempt to be so, or is your sense of morality dependent on your god and his intermediary priests ?

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 05:11 PM
Sorry, but Willie is making a reasonable hypothesis here, one which I have also made in the past.

Let's turn it into a question.

Where do you think your morality comes from? Are you moral because it is innate in humanity to attempt to be so, or is your sense of morality dependent on your god and his intermediary priests ?

All good emanates from God and is a gift. See total depravity of man.

Calypso Jones
10-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Was that ever required of anyone according to Scripture? God doesn't play games with His family like that.

BadCat
10-03-2010, 05:18 PM
Well as far as I know it's impossible to make someone accept something, however let's assume some smart-ass atheists, 5 of them, tell you nthat if you sign a paper containing every blaspheme and a formal renunciation of your faith, that they will go to church, and 3 of them become saved, is that a morally right action?

You're a fucking idiot.

And I'm getting REALLY TIRED of reading your vomit on this board.

hampshirebrit
10-03-2010, 05:20 PM
All good emanates from God and is a gift. See total depravity of man.

See, I just don't buy into that at all, obviously. It's a complete cop-out, for one thing.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 05:23 PM
See, I just don't buy into that at all, obviously. It's a complete cop-out, for one thing.

Of course you don't, I didn't particularly like the idea when I first heard it either but then again I am the created , not the creator.

hampshirebrit
10-03-2010, 05:32 PM
Of course you don't, I didn't particularly like the idea when I first heard it either but then again I am the created , not the creator.

Nicely put. I don't agree at all with the last bit, but nicely put.

For me, I neither like, nor would I ever accept the idea. It just does not work for me.

I could ask what circumstance prompted you to reach such a conclusion so opposite to my own, and with such certainty, but that might be a bit intrusive of me, so I shall forbear.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 05:35 PM
Nicely put. I don't agree at all with the last bit, but nicely put.

For me, I neither like, nor would I ever accept the idea. It just does not work for me.

I could ask what circumstance prompted you to reach such a conclusion so opposite to my own, and with such certainty, but that might be a bit intrusive of me, so I shall forbear.

It would be best to leave it as it is for now.:D

HarryHeart
10-03-2010, 05:57 PM
Well as far as I know it's impossible to make someone accept something, however let's assume some smart-ass atheists, 5 of them, tell you nthat if you sign a paper containing every blaspheme and a formal renunciation of your faith, that they will go to church, and 3 of them become saved, is that a morally right action?

Well, first of all, I could never renunciate my faith. Even for some smart-ass atheist ;) or a whole bunch of them. Their relationship with God is theirs. Second, there is such a thing as being called and the wooing of the Holy Spirit. I'm not in charge of wooing so it would be foolish of me to be tricked into a situation like that. My moral obligation is to present that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. After that, it's up to them.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 06:50 PM
This is why I think Christian morality isn't actually morality at all. Its about gaining reward, avoiding punishment or seeking approval... none of which really have anything to do with morality at all.

Right you would think this conundrum of self-sacrifice would be a headscratcher for a christian, given that christianity is based on sacrifice...

Sonnabend
10-03-2010, 06:51 PM
Right you would think this conundrum of self-sacrifice would be a headscratcher for a christian, given that christianity is based on sacrifice...

Since when do you give a shit about anyone save yourself?

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 06:53 PM
so what does the phrase "what would Jesus do?" signify?

If we are called to do our best to try to live a christ-like life by getting saved and allowing God's love to work through you, then all of this antagonism seems to just be misplaced.

If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

Phillygirl
10-03-2010, 06:56 PM
so what does the phrase "what would Jesus do?" signify?

If we are called to do our best to try to live a christ-like life by getting saved and allowing God's love to work through you, then all of this antagonism seems to just be misplaced.

If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

What antagonism?

Sonnabend
10-03-2010, 07:52 PM
If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

Since when do you give a rats ass for anyone besides yourself.?

Speedy
10-03-2010, 08:01 PM
If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

Jesus never called for anyone to do that. Jesus only requires of us to accept HIS sacrfice, nothing more. one would be damning himself by rejecting Christ's sacrifice for us, even if it was a selfless act to save others.

HarryHeart
10-03-2010, 08:07 PM
If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

Not to the point of our souls.

HarryHeart
10-03-2010, 08:09 PM
If we are called to do our best to try to live a christ-like life by getting saved and allowing God's love to work through you, then all of this antagonism seems to just be misplaced.



Why do you think we need saving in the first place? We're not perfect.

Calypso Jones
10-03-2010, 09:06 PM
we are not required to give up our salvation for anyone elses because we cannot buy that salvation with our own blood...we are not perfect as was Christ, we are not divine...in spite of what you sadly believe. NEITHER do we Save anyone. We can witness but it is ultimately that persons own decision to accept God's grace. It's sad that you think you are so smart that you think you set traps for christians. You have been snared by satan yourself and you don't even realize it.

no one comes to the Father except thru the Son. And HE is the way the truth and the light. The ONLY way. The path is narrow. Error is Broad, easy, accomodating and popular.

PoliCon
10-03-2010, 09:09 PM
So within the christian framework at least, there's a moral emphasis placed on selflesness, self-sacrifice, and loving others as your self or greater. Much of Christ's teachings involved putting others before yourself.

However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?

Say someone told you, if you sign some paper saying you forfeit your place in heaven but 5 former unbelievers would be saved, would you do it?

Would that be a morally good action?

You have no clue about the reality of Christianity do you. :rolleyes:

No one saves their own soul or the soul of others. Nothing any of does can earn salvation for ourselves or for anyone else. Your whole premise is stupid, ill informed, and just plain wrong. Get a clue. :rolleyes:

FlaGator
10-03-2010, 09:12 PM
The misunderstanding of the Gospel that I am seeing by the usual suspects is just amazing. wilbur has been told that he has absolutely no grasp of the Gospel specifically and of Christianity in general and yet he continues to join in conversations that only highlight his ignorance.

What did Einstein say about insanity?

FlaGator
10-03-2010, 09:19 PM
Nicely put. I don't agree at all with the last bit, but nicely put.

For me, I neither like, nor would I ever accept the idea. It just does not work for me.

I could ask what circumstance prompted you to reach such a conclusion so opposite to my own, and with such certainty, but that might be a bit intrusive of me, so I shall forbear.

What you don't understand is that when the Lord calls you, you don't have a choice. It's not like He drags you kicking and screaming to your salvation, your desires simply change. Think of it like this, it's like hating asparagus and one day you are led to try it and you find out that you really enjoy the taste. The flavor hasn't changed, just your view of it has.

I was not looking for God when he called me and before he called I would have been comfortable making (and probably did make) the exact same statement as you. In fact when I first started on CU in 2004 I was not a Christian. That changed in April of 2006.

wilbur
10-03-2010, 10:03 PM
The misunderstanding of the Gospel that I am seeing by the usual suspects is just amazing. wilbur has been told that he has absolutely no grasp of the Gospel specifically and of Christianity in general and yet he continues to join in conversations that only highlight his ignorance.

What did Einstein say about insanity?

Well, its one thing for you to say that I have no grasp of what I speak (which is funny because I was offering my *own* opinion of Christian "morality", not making statements about how Christians think of their moral system)... its another for you to demonstrate it.

Unless you decide to graduate beyond bare assertions and ad hominem attacks, we all must assume you just aren't up to the task.

CueSi
10-03-2010, 10:14 PM
Well, you know what they say about opinions. :D

~QC

m00
10-03-2010, 10:34 PM
So within the christian framework at least, there's a moral emphasis placed on selflesness, self-sacrifice, and loving others as your self or greater. Much of Christ's teachings involved putting others before yourself.

However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?

Say someone told you, if you sign some paper saying you forfeit your place in heaven but 5 former unbelievers would be saved, would you do it?

Would that be a morally good action?

I'm not playing this game. You start X threads a day on... "What is the meaning of life... what do you think?" without any emotional investment in the thread. You expect OTHERS to come in and spend all this time thinking about your "awesome question" :rolleyes: and then you bail and start another thread.

Calypso Jones
10-03-2010, 10:36 PM
the goal is not to have any conversation or even to get some answers. The goal is to undermine someone's faith.

Sonnabend
10-03-2010, 10:40 PM
the goal is not to have any conversation or even to get some answers. The goal is to undermine someone's faith.

Exactly.

MrsSmith
10-03-2010, 10:46 PM
So within the christian framework at least, there's a moral emphasis placed on selflesness, self-sacrifice, and loving others as your self or greater. Much of Christ's teachings involved putting others before yourself.

However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?

Say someone told you, if you sign some paper saying you forfeit your place in heaven but 5 former unbelievers would be saved, would you do it?

Would that be a morally good action?Point 1) You go to heaven because you accept Christ's sacrifice and allow Him to wash away your sin.

Point 2) After becoming a new person through Christ's work, you give sacrificially and love others because He has changed your heart. They are signs of the change, but have absolutely nothing to do with gaining heaven. These sacrifices are gifts you give to those you love and to your Savior.

Point 3) If someone told me that I could forfeit my place in heaven and give it to 5 unbelievers, I would explain the facts of salvation to that person...and offer to pray with him for the salvation of those 5 people.

Point 4) At least a couple W's on this board would look a lot smarter if they either remained silent in discussions about any subject they don't understand...or took some basic theology courses so they could say reasonably intelligent things about Christianity for a change.

MrsSmith
10-03-2010, 10:51 PM
This is why I think Christian morality isn't actually morality at all. Its about gaining reward, avoiding punishment or seeking approval... none of which really have anything to do with morality at all.

And yet, Christians are not saved, rewarded or punished by or for their actions, but are saved only by the actions of Christ...and if there are rewards given in heaven, those rewards are then given to Christ also. The only thing a Christian gains by good works is, hopefully, the opportunity to tell another the good news, and the chance to give some sliver back to Christ for the huge work He has done in us.

MrsSmith
10-03-2010, 10:52 PM
Sorry, but Willie is making a reasonable hypothesis here, one which I have also made in the past.

Let's turn it into a question.

Where do you think your morality comes from? Are you moral because it is innate in humanity to attempt to be so, or is your sense of morality dependent on your god and his intermediary priests ?

If humans were innately moral, there would be no such thing as abortion. Innately moral creatures do not kill their own young.

Calypso Jones
10-03-2010, 10:59 PM
odd isn't it. Liberals are said to believe in the innate goodness of man...in his inner divinity...and yet they want to legalize the killing of the unborn and protect the lives of murderers and rapists

conservatives on the other hand, it is said, believe that man is innately bad and yet they want to protect the lives of the unborn and protect society from the murderers and rapists.

m00
10-03-2010, 11:03 PM
This is why I think Christian morality isn't actually morality at all. Its about gaining reward, avoiding punishment or seeking approval... none of which really have anything to do with morality at all.

Disclaimer: I am not, and have never been, a Christian.

However, I think what you write will always be true, for any set of rules. Some people don't rape and murder because they want to avoid punishment (jail/death penalty) and not lose their comfortable life-style, their car, their family, and so forth. Other people don't rape and murder because it simply isn't in their nature, and they have empathy.

I think the same is true for Christianity. You have Christians that love... everything, really. And Christianity is probably the right religion for these people, because this is what the Christian messiah believed. And there are other people who call themselves Christians, who "follow the rules" because "they are supposed to." I am not a theologian, so I can't say to what degree this matters for purposes of salvation. But I suspect, if there is a Christian Father, and Jesus is the Son, then they probably know the difference between really believing (and understanding), and going through the motions; and people who just "follow the rules" will be in for a rude awakening on judgment day.

NJCardFan
10-03-2010, 11:46 PM
It doesn't really matter how we frame it, I get that a Christian can't force someone to be saved, but if there was a situation where you had to choose between your own salvation and the salvation of others, what would you choose?

What is the Christian thing to do?
I used to think you were stupid but I don't think that anymore. I'm completely convinced of it. The reason being, the answer is so blatantly obvious it renders the entire question moot.


If Jesus was willing to sacrifice himself for us, are we not called to sacrifice ourselves for others?

Nowhere in the New Testament are we called to sacrifice ourselves. Nowhere. Jesus made the sacrifice so we didn't have to. If you would have actually read the thing you'd understand it. There is no requirement to save anyone, only to spread the Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 12:03 AM
If humans were innately moral, there would be no such thing as abortion. Innately moral creatures do not kill their own young.

Um....do you have any examples of innately moral creatures?

Wei Wu Wei
10-04-2010, 12:05 AM
Interesting views on Christianity.

I should have filled the OP with disclaimers, the idea was to see what's more important to a Christian, their own personal life+afterlife or the lives of others, not to try to re-write the doctrines of christianity.

Calypso Jones
10-04-2010, 12:10 AM
and you still don't get it. oh well.

Sonnabend
10-04-2010, 02:21 AM
I should have filled the OP with disclaimers, the idea was to see what's more important to a Christian, their own personal life+afterlife or the lives of others, not to try to re-write the doctrines of christianity.

And I reply that you dont care for the lives of others, or anyone else, except yourself.

FlaGator
10-04-2010, 02:49 AM
Well, its one thing for you to say that I have no grasp of what I speak (which is funny because I was offering my *own* opinion of Christian "morality", not making statements about how Christians think of their moral system)... its another for you to demonstrate it.

Unless you decide to graduate beyond bare assertions and ad hominem attacks, we all must assume you just aren't up to the task.

You prove my point every time you post on the subject or any related subject.

This statement right here


This is why I think Christian morality isn't actually morality at all. Its about gaining reward, avoiding punishment or seeking approval... none of which really have anything to do with morality at all.Shows a complete lack of understanding of Christian doctrine. Christians don't seek Christ to avoid punishment or to receive a reward. They are called by God to seek Christ. The "rewards" as you call them are just a consequence of the call. That Christians choose to do that which is good is not to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment or even to receive "brownie points". Good acts and improving behavior are a sign that a Christian is regenerate and acting in the spirit.

Your whole assertion of gaining reward or avoiding punishment establishes your complete ignorance of the Gospel. I am saved because I believe. I believe because called called me. I have to do nothing to retain my salvation nor did I do anything to merit my salvation. That God moves me to act in a manner consistent with my state of grace only verifies my salvation to others.

NJCardFan
10-04-2010, 03:38 AM
You prove my point every time you post on the subject or any related subject.

This statement right here

Shows a complete lack of understanding of Christian doctrine. Christians don't seek Christ to avoid punishment or to receive a reward. They are called by God to seek Christ. The "rewards" as you call them are just a consequence of the call. That Christians choose to do that which is good is not to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment or even to receive "brownie points". Good acts and improving behavior are a sign that a Christian is regenerate and acting in the spirit.

Your whole assertion of gaining reward or avoiding punishment establishes your complete ignorance of the Gospel. I am saved because I believe. I believe because called called me. I have to do nothing to retain my salvation nor did I do anything to merit my salvation. That God moves me to act in a manner consistent with my state of grace only verifies my salvation to others.

People like Wilbur simply do not understand that this isn't how it works. Committing murder then helping an old lady across the street do not cancel each other out. Nor does going out for a night of whoring and drinking cancel out going to church. This isn't grammar school where getting an A in science cancels out the F you got in math. It's like he old saying; The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 08:46 AM
You prove my point every time you post on the subject or any related subject.

This statement right here

Shows a complete lack of understanding of Christian doctrine. Christians don't seek Christ to avoid punishment or to receive a reward. They are called by God to seek Christ. The "rewards" as you call them are just a consequence of the call. That Christians choose to do that which is good is not to receive a reward or to avoid a punishment or even to receive "brownie points". Good acts and improving behavior are a sign that a Christian is regenerate and acting in the spirit.

Your whole assertion of gaining reward or avoiding punishment establishes your complete ignorance of the Gospel. I am saved because I believe. I believe because called called me. I have to do nothing to retain my salvation nor did I do anything to merit my salvation. That God moves me to act in a manner consistent with my state of grace only verifies my salvation to others.

Again, I am not ignorant of the different Christian philosophies on these matters... I already knew everything you just typed. And once again, the gospels are ambiguous on salvation and morality. One can tease from them just about any possible point of view on these topics.

But when I look at how most forms of Christianity in the world, I see a disconnect between these sorts of high-falutin theologies that are presented when someone makes a cogent challenge to Christian morality, and what is actually believed and practiced in reality, the rest of the time.

I see the absolute incredulity from countless Christians when it is said that an atheist can practice morality without the promise of threat or reward in the afterlife. Ya know.. if nothing happens when you die, why would you practice any self-restraint in life, at all? I mean.. if only Stalin believed in Hell, he could have been a good person! This sort of attitude is nearly ubiquitous in my experience - its why so many believers are irrationally bigoted towards atheists.

The other point YOU are not getting, is that these particular beliefs are unique to your own brand of Christianity. Catholics, for example, completely disagree with you. So even though you speak in a very matter of fact manner in your post about what it takes to be saved, it makes me believe you are ignorant of the controversies and disagreements within Christianity over salvation (and even moral theory), which are many and great. So on the contrary, it appears that I know more about "the Gospels" and the differing viewpoints on them, than you.

AmPat
10-04-2010, 08:50 AM
It doesn't really matter how we frame it, I get that a Christian can't force someone to be saved, but if there was a situation where you had to choose between your own salvation and the salvation of others, what would you choose?

What is the Christian thing to do?
Answer at least one tenth of the questions posed to you and maybe Folks here will think about answering your stupid questions. Until then, kindly shut up and leave everybody here alone.:cool:

AmPat
10-04-2010, 08:52 AM
Interesting views on Christianity.

I should have filled the OP with disclaimers, the idea was to see what's more important to a Christian, their own personal life+afterlife or the lives of others, not to try to re-write the doctrines of christianity.

It is not an either or. Your question is flawed and limits the answer. Christians can help others while on this earth. We cannot affect or decide another's afterlife.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 08:58 AM
If humans were innately moral, there would be no such thing as abortion. Innately moral creatures do not kill their own young.

Leaving the moral debate about abortion off the table for now, I just have to say something else here.

Does it follow from the mere presence of an "innate moral sense" in a being that said being must also be able to follow it with absolute perfection? I think that's a pretty obvious "no", but that's what your argument implies.

There's no reason why an imperfect moral sense couldn't exist in a being. There's no reason why an imperfect ability to follow that moral sense couldn't exist as well. It doesn't follow from imperfections in these senses, that a being must be "innately immoral".

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 10:47 AM
While Wilbur and Wei are debating how many angels cannot dance on the head of a pin, the religion of peace continues to advance its agenda. Click on the link. http://downloads.cbn.com/cbnnewsplayer/cbnplayer.swf?aid=17933

Gingersnap
10-04-2010, 01:04 PM
The other point YOU are not getting, is that these particular beliefs are unique to your own brand of Christianity. Catholics, for example, completely disagree with you. So even though you speak in a very matter of fact manner in your post about what it takes to be saved, it makes me believe you are ignorant of the controversies and disagreements within Christianity over salvation (and even moral theory), which are many and great. So on the contrary, it appears that I know more about "the Gospels" and the differing viewpoints on them, than you.

Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on salvation or the actions of grace. Catholics differ in that they believe that some works can mitigate their stay in purgatory or enlarge their reward in heaven. Works cannot attain salvation in Catholic theology, neither can works save an unregenerate soul from Hell. Works are not a factor in the Catholic view of salvation. Worse yet, the value of good works is completely dependent on a number of factors that go well beyond simply feeding, housing, clothing people or performing other actions like visiting the sick or the imprisoned. Any heretic or unbeliever could do those things.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 01:22 PM
Catholics and Protestants do not disagree on salvation or the actions of grace. Catholics differ in that they believe that some works can mitigate their stay in purgatory or enlarge their reward in heaven. Works cannot attain salvation in Catholic theology, neither can works save an unregenerate soul from Hell. Works are not a factor in the Catholic view of salvation. Worse yet, the value of good works is completely dependent on a number of factors that go well beyond simply feeding, housing, clothing people or performing other actions like visiting the sick or the imprisoned. Any heretic or unbeliever could do those things.

Its not "works alone" any more than it is "faith alone' under Catholicism... the latter is definitely heretical (ie, the protestant view) and the former probably would be too. But yea, this very disagreement is one of the reasons Protestants exist... they definitely disagree.

Gingersnap
10-04-2010, 01:40 PM
Its not "works alone" any more than it is "faith alone' under Catholicism... the latter is definitely heretical (ie, the protestant view) and the former probably would be too. But yea, this very disagreement is one of the reasons Protestants exist... they definitely disagree.

Just not on salvation. They disagree on the existence of purgatory, the efficacy of petitionary prayer, the mechanism for the remission of sin, the intercession of saints, the loss of salvation and the nature of communion but salvation through grace is not an issue.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 01:58 PM
Just not on salvation. They disagree on the existence of purgatory, the efficacy of petitionary prayer, the mechanism for the remission of sin, the intercession of saints, the loss of salvation and the nature of communion but salvation through grace is not an issue.

Note that this is what I was responding too, when you interjected:



I have to do nothing to retain my salvation nor did I do anything to merit my salvation. That God moves me to act in a manner consistent with my state of grace only verifies my salvation to others.


This is not a universal belief within Christianity, and it is clearly heretical in Catholicism.

Gingersnap
10-04-2010, 03:27 PM
Note that this is what I was responding too, when you interjected:



This is not a universal belief within Christianity, and it is clearly heretical in Catholicism.

Only the retention of salvation part. Catholics believe in degrees of sin, some of which are sufficient to cause the lost of salvation. Some Protestants also believe in the loss of salvation while others do not.

In any case, there is nothing a human can do merit salvation in the first place.

Odysseus
10-04-2010, 03:50 PM
In any case, there is nothing a human can do merit salvation in the first place.

You've obviously never seen the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. :D

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 04:37 PM
You've obviously never seen the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show. :D

Salvation not salivation!:rolleyes:

MrsSmith
10-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Um....do you have any examples of innately moral creatures?Christ

MrsSmith
10-04-2010, 06:54 PM
Interesting views on Christianity.

I should have filled the OP with disclaimers, the idea was to see what's more important to a Christian, their own personal life+afterlife or the lives of others, not to try to re-write the doctrines of christianity. In order to explore what's more important to a Christian, you could ask, "What is more important..." Writing theologically ignorant questions would not be the correct way to gain that knowledge.

What is most important to a Christian is to strive to live a life that pleases Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount, (the whole thing, not a few cherry-picked verses) would be the life that a true Christian is striving toward. Being human, we're never perfect enough to get there, but that's no excuse to stop trying.

MrsSmith
10-04-2010, 07:01 PM
Leaving the moral debate about abortion off the table for now, I just have to say something else here.

Does it follow from the mere presence of an "innate moral sense" in a being that said being must also be able to follow it with absolute perfection? I think that's a pretty obvious "no", but that's what your argument implies.

There's no reason why an imperfect moral sense couldn't exist in a being. There's no reason why an imperfect ability to follow that moral sense couldn't exist as well. It doesn't follow from imperfections in these senses, that a being must be "innately immoral".Of course, the moral sense does exist, just as CS Lewis has pointed out in his most excellent writings. Of course, no human is able to follow it perfectly, with the exception of Christ. That moral sense is worked upon and made closer to perfect by the actions of the Holy Spirit. Without that assistance, it is very imperfect, a fact made completely obvious by the news.

MrsSmith
10-04-2010, 07:11 PM
Again, I am not ignorant of the different Christian philosophies on these matters... I already knew everything you just typed.


I see the absolute incredulity from countless Christians when it is said that an atheist can practice morality without the promise of threat or reward in the afterlife.

You know ALL about it, everything!!! And then turn right around and speak as though Christians have any "promise of threat or reward" in the afterlife that coerces them into better behavior. :D:D:D Christians are already completely forgiven. No matter what, we go to heaven. No threat of punishment...and any rewards are given away. Now, why, exactly, would a Christian strive to life a moral life, given that nothing we do can change that, if any of it were based on rewards and punishments instead of love and thankfulness??? Atheists, however, while professing no belief in any after life, must suffer some doubts...and try to hedge their bets by doing good works because, after all, "They aren't such bad people that they deserve hell. Surely a fair god will measure the good against the bad and reward us for being good, right?" You have made that exact argument yourself.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 08:51 PM
Of course, the moral sense does exist, just as CS Lewis has pointed out in his most excellent writings. Of course, no human is able to follow it perfectly, with the exception of Christ. That moral sense is worked upon and made closer to perfect by the actions of the Holy Spirit. Without that assistance, it is very imperfect, a fact made completely obvious by the news.

Then you have contradicted earlier statement which, to paraphrase, says "no creature which kills its young is innately moral". So now you seem to mostly agree with Hampshirebrit on the point you argued with him about... that people have are innately moral.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 08:57 PM
You know ALL about it, everything!!! And then turn right around and speak as though Christians have any "promise of threat or reward" in the afterlife that coerces them into better behavior. :D:D:D Christians are already completely forgiven. No matter what, we go to heaven.


Again, this is your specific theology... not the theology of Christians as a whole, or even the majority of Christians. But in any case, why should you care that you are forgiven? If there were no benefit to being forgiven, why should you care? From here, it looks like you care only because you desire eternal life in paradise.



No threat of punishment...and any rewards are given away. Now, why, exactly, would a Christian strive to life a moral life, given that nothing we do can change that, if any of it were based on rewards and punishments instead of love and thankfulness??? Atheists, however, while professing no belief in any after life, must suffer some doubts...and try to hedge their bets by doing good works because, after all, "They aren't such bad people that they deserve hell. Surely a fair god will measure the good against the bad and reward us for being good, right?" You have made that exact argument yourself.

Assuming there were a God who saw fit to doll out punishments and rewards to certain people after death and assuming that He was moral and just, then it follows that He would reward those who lead moral lives. Simply professing faith in this God or what have you, has little, if any, moral merit so it follows that he wouldn't so much care whether one professes to believe in him or not. But of course, he could just as easily be evil too, and punish those who lead good moral lives.

Of course, there you go... suggesting atheists must only be doing good in order to "hedge their bets". As if the only reason to do good is to get a reward. See what I mean? It sure looks like you believe it.

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 09:55 PM
I have only one question;

Why would you (Wee Wee and Wilbur) want to lead someone astray from their beliefs? :confused:

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 10:04 PM
I have only one question;

Why would you (Wee Wee and Wilbur) want to lead someone astray from their beliefs? :confused:

Evil.

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 10:09 PM
Evil.

I agree.

Another question;

Why do Wee Wee and Wilbur not answer?

I suspect EVIL again.

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 10:13 PM
I agree.

Another question;

Why do Wee Wee and Wilbur not answer?

I suspect EVIL again.

They will only answer questions that fit their agenda. Wilbur is just an idiot but I think this is part of Wei Wei's job.

FlaGator
10-04-2010, 10:33 PM
Note that this is what I was responding too, when you interjected:



This is not a universal belief within Christianity, and it is clearly heretical in Catholicism.

Catholics do clearly believe it is possible to lose one's salvation. I see nothing in scripture that spells that out. Also, to believe that one can lose salvation is to deny that God is omniscient. The Catholics have struggled reconciling the two views of God.

At any rate this deviates from the topic. Can someone save another soul and that answer is now. It is a pointless to argue the variations of Christian belief and a distraction from the topic at hand. Only one person, and that person is Jesus Christ is capable of saving another and He is capable of extending salvation to all mankind, if only all men would accept it.

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 10:36 PM
Again Wilbur and Wee Wee, I ask;

Why would you (Wee Wee and Wilbur) want to lead someone astray from their beliefs?

AmPat
10-04-2010, 10:38 PM
I agree.

Another question;

Why do Wee Wee and Wilbur not answer?

I suspect EVIL again.

Yet more questions:
1. Why does Wilbur want to dissuade people from a God they don't believe in?
2. Isn't it better to let people believe in a God that may exist than to fight against one that you don't believe in?

Rockntractor
10-04-2010, 10:42 PM
When you were a kid and you knew you were doing something wrong, did you ever try to lure other kids into doing it too?
You think if more people are doing it somehow it will make it okay.

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 10:49 PM
Ever notice that they go away when confronted by their own methods?

Just answer their illogical questions with a logical question and poof they are gone.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 10:54 PM
Wow... I've answered this in at least 10 different ways since I've been back...

See this entire thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32245

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 10:57 PM
Wow... I've answered this in at least 10 different ways since I've been back...

See this entire thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32245

Humor me, try to answer it again. Remember I can't cypher letters too good.

wilbur
10-04-2010, 11:04 PM
Humor me, try to answer it again. Remember I can't cypher letters too good.

Yea, if you're too lazy to read, I'm too lazy to type. Best I'll do is a copy and paste..





NJCardFan says:

You know what I find funny? If atheists like Wilbur and Bill Mahr are so offended by religion, why not just ignore it? Why spend so much time bashing it when you can simply ignore it's there? I think it comes down to the old saying, "methinks he doth protests too much." I think people like you want to believe that there is no God but know deep down that you are wrong so you start these inane arguments in hopes of convincing yourselves.



Wilbur says:

Well, gee... if you're so offended by liberalism, why not just ignore it? Why flock to a message board where you bash it, when you can simply ignore that its there. I think people like you want to believe that liberalism is the way and know deep down that you are wrong so you start these inane arguments in hopes of convincing yourselves.

The answer is obvious.

Big Guy
10-04-2010, 11:09 PM
Yea, if you're too lazy to read, I'm too lazy to type. Best I'll do is a copy and paste..

You did NOT answer the question. Remember, I'm a simpleton and I can't cypher letters too good. Try to dummy it down for me.

wilbur
10-05-2010, 09:57 AM
You did NOT answer the question. Remember, I'm a simpleton and I can't cypher letters too good. Try to dummy it down for me.

<sigh> ok.

I believe that truth matters. I believe that false beliefs, in general, are almost never harmless. Sure we can point to a few obvious counterexamples, like Santa and the Easter Bunny, but those are mere indulgences for our childhood, not for us to believe as adults.

The content of our beliefs will affect how we act in the world. That was the point I hoped you would take away from my last post. You, and everyone else here, obviously care what liberals think. You would like to change their mind, to challenge their beliefs because those beliefs affect how they act in the world. They affect you. You should be able to understand why I desire to affect the beliefs of others the same as you, even when it comes to religion.

While not every false belief is a national emergency, I do think its especially important to critically examine and challenge wide sweeping and often dogmatic beliefs about the nature of life, the universe, and everything that is part and parcel of religious belief. If there are any questions in life we should be seeking to answer accurately and honestly, it should be questions about those things... no matter who it makes uncomfortable.

Our modern views on the sanctity of personal belief were shaped in a very reactionary way by the injustices of history. We all know that terrible persecutions can occur because of personal beliefs about gods and the like. In fear of those terrible things, we have moved to an equally unacceptable position. A position which says it is always wrong and rude to criticize or challenge the religious beliefs of others, so long as that belief causes some good with the harm that it does, and that truth does not matter.

I disagree.

Gingersnap
10-05-2010, 10:27 AM
The answer to your original question is that it is one outside the Christian worldview. We do not believe that we have the capacity to affect the salvation of others except by publishing the Good News one way or another and even then, any effort on the part of a human being to move toward faith is wholly through grace.

Renouncing salvation (assuming anyone could establish that fact for himself) in order to 'save' 5 others would be theoretically noble in a wishful thinking sense but it makes no sense within Christian theology. Would you sacrifice your life to save 5 other people from death? - that's a question with a moral implication that could be answered from within a Christian framework (it could be answered both ways).

Your question is a lot like asking a Buddhist a similar hypothetical. "Assume there is no karma and that you have merely one life: (state question)." A Buddhist couldn't seriously answer a question posed that way. Christians can't seriously answer questions which assume that they have control over the salvation of others.

Zafod
10-05-2010, 02:22 PM
However, if you are only doing these things to go to heaven, are you really doing it for them, or for you?


christians dont do works to get into heaven.I am already getting into heaven as I have been saved by the death of Jesus and my sins are forgiven.

I reach out to my fellow man because it was commanded of my by my Lord.

MrsSmith
10-05-2010, 08:04 PM
Then you have contradicted earlier statement which, to paraphrase, says "no creature which kills its young is innately moral". So now you seem to mostly agree with Hampshirebrit on the point you argued with him about... that people have are innately moral.

People have a moral sense, yes. They are not moral creatures. They rationalize why it's ok for them to break this moral sense all the time. If humans were moral creatures, there would be no abortion...and no one would debate whether or not abortion is OK until ____age or for ____reason.

MrsSmith
10-05-2010, 08:13 PM
Again, this is your specific theology... not the theology of Christians as a whole, or even the majority of Christians. But in any case, why should you care that you are forgiven? If there were no benefit to being forgiven, why should you care? From here, it looks like you care only because you desire eternal life in paradise.
Actually, this is foundational to Christian belief. Any Christian that does not believe this is either not a Christian, or is completely ignorant of the foundations of his faith Your belief that this is in some way not the theology of all Christians is similar to stating that a Christian does not need to believe in Christ. Anyone can say they are Christian, but that doesn't mean they actually are.



Assuming there were a God who saw fit to doll out punishments and rewards to certain people after death and assuming that He was moral and just, then it follows that He would reward those who lead moral lives. Simply professing faith in this God or what have you, has little, if any, moral merit so it follows that he wouldn't so much care whether one professes to believe in him or not. But of course, he could just as easily be evil too, and punish those who lead good moral lives.

Of course, there you go... suggesting atheists must only be doing good in order to "hedge their bets". As if the only reason to do good is to get a reward. See what I mean? It sure looks like you believe it.
Assuming that you can build the god you want, you can assume anything. However, the real God didn't build His universe using your assumptions. Instead, He gave us a specific method to attain heaven, and then gave us the choice to go there, or not.

And of course atheists have no other reason to live a moral life other than to attain some reward. If you really just **POOF** disappear when you die, why not do everything you can possibly do to make yourself happy? If, on the other hand, you have some feeling that there really is a god, or karma, or something, then try earning your way into some sort of reward by your actions. It won't work, but you're free to make the wrong choice if you'd prefer.

Christians, on the other hand...at least, the real ones, the ones that know the deal...are completely aware that works bring no reward, so remaining the most giving segment of society purely out of love for Christ.

m00
10-05-2010, 10:48 PM
Christians, on the other hand...at least, the real ones, the ones that know the deal...are completely aware that works bring no reward, so remaining the most giving segment of society purely out of love for Christ.

I have an incredibly selfish Catholic friend (one of those people where you say "it's just how they are"), who justifies bad behavior by saying good behavior is not necessary to get into Heaven. And my understanding of Christian doctrine is that this is the way it is.

But if Jesus said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then surely that implies wickedness can bar you from Heaven even if one believes in the salvation of Jesus.

wilbur
10-06-2010, 08:57 AM
I have an incredibly selfish Catholic friend (one of those people where you say "it's just how they are"), who justifies bad behavior by saying good behavior is not necessary to get into Heaven. And my understanding of Christian doctrine is that this is the way it is.

But if Jesus said that it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then surely that implies wickedness can bar you from Heaven even if one believes in the salvation of Jesus.

He doesn't understand Catholicism.... contrary to what Ginger says, failure to do good works can contribute to losing one's Grace in the Catholic view.

wilbur
10-06-2010, 09:05 AM
People have a moral sense, yes. They are not moral creatures. They rationalize why it's ok for them to break this moral sense all the time. If humans were moral creatures, there would be no abortion...and no one would debate whether or not abortion is OK until ____age or for ____reason.

It sounds like your definition of "moral creature" is something like "a creature who never acts immorally". I don't think that's what Hampshirebrit nor most other people mean by "innately moral". It's certainly not what I mean.

What your saying is a little like saying, "If man were a creature that could innately see, then there would be no such thing as blindness." Well, obviously man has the innate capability for sight, and is a creature who innately sees. However, none of us see perfectly, some of us see better than others, and some of us can't even see at all. But its still the case that man is creature who innately sees.

So when I claim man 'innately moral creature' I mean it in the exact same sense that I mean 'man innately sees'. I have a feeling that's what Hampshirebrit means too.

hampshirebrit
10-06-2010, 09:08 AM
I have a feeling that's what Hampshirebrit means too.

It is.

Big Guy
10-06-2010, 09:39 PM
<sigh> ok.

I believe that truth matters. I believe that false beliefs, in general, are almost never harmless. Sure we can point to a few obvious counterexamples, like Santa and the Easter Bunny, but those are mere indulgences for our childhood, not for us to believe as adults.

The content of our beliefs will affect how we act in the world. That was the point I hoped you would take away from my last post. You, and everyone else here, obviously care what liberals think. You would like to change their mind, to challenge their beliefs because those beliefs affect how they act in the world. They affect you. You should be able to understand why I desire to affect the beliefs of others the same as you, even when it comes to religion.

While not every false belief is a national emergency, I do think its especially important to critically examine and challenge wide sweeping and often dogmatic beliefs about the nature of life, the universe, and everything that is part and parcel of religious belief. If there are any questions in life we should be seeking to answer accurately and honestly, it should be questions about those things... no matter who it makes uncomfortable.

Our modern views on the sanctity of personal belief were shaped in a very reactionary way by the injustices of history. We all know that terrible persecutions can occur because of personal beliefs about gods and the like. In fear of those terrible things, we have moved to an equally unacceptable position. A position which says it is always wrong and rude to criticize or challenge the religious beliefs of others, so long as that belief causes some good with the harm that it does, and that truth does not matter.

I disagree.

Not dummied down much, but I cyphered the letters just fine.

This is what I got out of what you wrote.
You think that because Christians "Spread The Word" trying to help people save their own souls (Which you do not believe in), You can and are supposed to counter them and try to get them to go astray from Christ.

So You put God, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Easter Bunnie, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy all in the same category.

I believe this makes you the tool of Satan, so I will Pray to God that you find the err of your ways and accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
May God have mercy on your soul.

wilbur
10-07-2010, 02:44 PM
Not dummied down much, but I cyphered the letters just fine.

This is what I got out of what you wrote.
You think that because Christians "Spread The Word" trying to help people save their own souls (Which you do not believe in), You can and are supposed to counter them and try to get them to go astray from Christ.

So You put God, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, The Easter Bunnie, Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy all in the same category.

I believe this makes you the tool of Satan, so I will Pray to God that you find the err of your ways and accept Jesus Christ as your savior.
May God have mercy on your soul.

Well, if I were to sum it up, while striving to be more accurate, I'd say:

False beliefs are generally bad.
Religions are probably false.
Therefore religions are generally bad.


And no... God is in a category all his own... he could possibly exist, he might not exist. He's not the worst explanation for the universe, but not the best either (this is God in the generic sense, I'm not talking about Yahweh - who almost certainly doesn't exist)

Jesus and Mohammad are in a different category from the rest - they might have actually been real people.

Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are all in the same category as Satan and Yahweh - almost certainly not real.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 09:36 PM
Jesus and Mohammad are in a different category from the rest - they might have actually been real people. They were.

We know Mohammed lived, and Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the son of Mary and Joseph, as recorded by the Romans under Augustus, when he ordered a census to be taken.

(he was known as Jesus of Nazareth)

The census is discussed by the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, as well as other historical figures.

Rockntractor
10-07-2010, 09:48 PM
I wonder if Wilbur is an actual person?

Apache
10-08-2010, 01:00 PM
I wonder if Wilbur is an actual person?

Find out next week, on this PIG channel...:eek:

MrsSmith
10-08-2010, 08:14 PM
It sounds like your definition of "moral creature" is something like "a creature who never acts immorally". I don't think that's what Hampshirebrit nor most other people mean by "innately moral". It's certainly not what I mean.

What your saying is a little like saying, "If man were a creature that could innately see, then there would be no such thing as blindness." Well, obviously man has the innate capability for sight, and is a creature who innately sees. However, none of us see perfectly, some of us see better than others, and some of us can't even see at all. But its still the case that man is creature who innately sees.

So when I claim man 'innately moral creature' I mean it in the exact same sense that I mean 'man innately sees'. I have a feeling that's what Hampshirebrit means too.

Humans have a sense of what is moral and what is immoral. This is why they rationalize their immorality. They are not creatures that have a problem with never acting immorally, they are creatures that have a problem with almost never acting in accordance with their moral sense. That's why we make such a big deal over the occasional hero. That's why abortion is in the millions instead of in the tens. That's why there are locks on doors, cars and everything else.