Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Salvation vs. Helping Others
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 1 of 30 (545551)
02-04-2010 8:06 AM


This is a discussion that stems from a Coffee House discussion Message 26.
I am interested in learning what people's priorities are.
Perhaps even what you think the Bible's priorities are.
I originally stated the dilemma as "Recruitment vs. Being Good and Nice". The previous discussion with iano has helped formulate the following clarifications:
"Recruitment" - What I'm thinking of is making sure others specifically believe that they are reliant on Jesus Christ as the single necessary tool for personal salvation. Identification of "Jesus Christ" is mandatory.
"Being Good and Nice" - What I'm thinking of is helping other people. Just gernarally trying and wanting to be a good and nice person.
My preceeding discussion with iano has led to the following possibility that these two seemingly-different aspects are actually one-and-the-same, or maybe "one priority consisting of two parts" as iano puts it.
If, somehow, they are the same thing, then why isn't "being good and nice" treated in the same way as being reliant on Jesus Christ for salvation? That is, why would there exist any need to recruit anyone to Jesus Christ who is already good and nice? Unless, of course... the two are not the same priority...
The only reason recruitment is necessary for people who are already good and nice would be if being good and nice is not an equivalent priority as believing you are reliant on Jesus Christ for personal salvation.
This lead me to create a simple scenario in order to actually visualize which of the two parts is actually a bit more important:
You are in the centre of a street. You learn of two people, one in a building on the North side, the other in a building on the South side.
Person in North building - Is very adept at helping others yet does not know of any person named Jesus Christ, or anything about salvation (doesn't even know it's something he may be interested in or even exists).
-Think of the nice neighbour who just doesn't go to church or deal with religion in any way.
Person in South building - Has in-depth knowledge of Jesus Christ. Fully believes that Jesus Christ is his personal saviour and the only method for his salvation. However, he doesn't help other people.
-Think of the devout religious guy who still cuts people off in traffic and such.
Who do you go and talk to first?
I am also interested in who you may think the Biblical Jesus Christ may go and talk to first.
I only have a superficial knowledge of the Bible, I certainly haven't studied it for years or anything like that.
Questions about the bible that I think may be of help for this discussion:
1. How many different parables did Jesus tell to other people when he was attempting to teach them lessons?
2. In those parables, how many parable-characters made sure that other people were recruited into specifically believing that they are reliant on Jesus Christ as the single necessary tool for salvation.
3. How many different times did Jesus identify himself to other people as the single necessary tool for salvation?
4. When attempting to teach others, would Jesus generally do both of these things? (Provide a parable and also identify himself as the single necessary tool for salvation?) If so, which did he do first?
Personally, I think that being good and nice is far and above any belief in Jesus Christ (or any other person or charcater) as personal saviour for any necessary salvation-purposes. I also think that Jesus Christ himself thinks this (but I admit my biblical knowledge is weak).
I am only looking for information, and for discussion.
I am not looking to be personally convinced about my personal salvation... my personal convictions do not rest on any of the answers to these questions. Even if believing in Jesus Christ really is the only way for personal salvation, I still put being good and nice as a higher priority than my own salvation. Such a thing can be judged as stupid or honourable, but again, my convictions do not rest on how others judge such things.
[size=0]For "Bible Study", I think. Maybe "Faith and Belief".[/size=0]
Edited by Stile, : Hopefully adding clarity

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 1:38 PM Stile has replied
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 02-05-2010 8:08 PM Stile has replied
 Message 5 by iano, posted 02-06-2010 11:55 AM Stile has replied
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2014 9:42 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 6 of 30 (546264)
02-09-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ICANT
02-05-2010 1:38 PM


Whoops... be back soon
Sorry guys (to all 3 of you), I did not intend to start a thread and not participate for so long. Such is life
Thanks for all of your input, but I am forced to apologize and hope that I can reply soon in the next few days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 1:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 7 of 30 (546968)
02-15-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ICANT
02-05-2010 1:38 PM


What's Inportant
Hi ICANT, just a few notes:
ICANT writes:
You probably won't like the answers I give you...
Don't worry about it, I'm good
On Person in South building:
(Knowledge of Jesus Christ, but doesn't help other people)
He/she has religion and believes many facts about Jesus but he/she has never met Jesus.
How do I know his/her condition? He/she doesn't have love for the brethren.
(Bolding is by Stile)
Here you seem to equate "meeting Jesus" with "having love for the brethren". I think that's a great similarity to attract attention.
On what and how Jesus preached to other people:
Parables were lessons not evaganlistic messages so none that I know of.
I agree very much that parables were lessons and not recruitment techniques. Interesting how Jesus spent so much time on those lessons as opposed to the recruitment techniques.
This was said to born again believers that were following Him every day, His disciples. They were the ones sent into the world to convince people to be believers.
Jesus spoke Jhn 14:6 to his desciples every day, you say? Is there any biblical record noting that Jesus said such a thing every single day? If recruitment was so important, why wouldn't Jesus teach about recruitment whenever large groups gathered around him? Why would he talk in parables about lessons instead? Perhaps the priority from Jesus is more about lessons and having love for the brethren.
If, as you seemed to equate above, "meeting Jesus" is similar to "having love for the brethren"... then isn't it possible that when Jesus tells his disciples that "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" he may actually be talking about that similarity? Is it possible that Jesus meant that no one comes to God except for by having love for the brethren? Isn't that what most of the parable lessons were about? Isn't that what Jesus himself decided to focus on whenever he had a large group of people around that wanted to listen to him speak?
You have a weird idea of what Jesus came to do. He did not come to evangalize the world.
He came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel to fulfill a promise to Abraham.
He came to prepare His Church to be able to evangalize the world.
He came to restore mankind to a right relationship with God. The only way to do that was to offer Himself a sacrifice on the cross of Calvary.
I think Jesus came to teach people how to love their brethren. Does that sound so weird?
I think that all that other stuff was simply to shock others into taking time to look at what Jesus has done and said. Just attention-grabbers, really. Why else would an all powerful God require any sort of sacrifice? It makes a lot of sense if that sacrifice was a fireworks show in order to get people's attention towards the lessons that Jesus focused on.
The attention seems to have worked. But maybe what Jesus focused on is still getting a bit lost.
The first three words, "Personally, I think" are the key.
What difference does it make what you think?
None at all. It is interesting, though. Hopefully thought-provoking, for someone.
Salvation is not yours to decide how you get it, makes no difference what you think. You can either accept God's salvation or reject it. That is your only choice.
Exactly. The choice for each and every one of us.
Do you think that placing importance on the same things that Jesus seemed to place importance on is an act of rejecting God's salvation?
You must accept God's offer of a free full pardon to receive God's salvation and there is no way to do that if you do not believe in Jesus Christ, as you have to accept what He did in His death, burial and resurrection.
I don't think this is true.
I think you have mis-interpreted the Bible and the lessons held within. But don't mind what I think, we have already discovered that it doesn't matter. Each and every one of us needs to rely on what we all personally think is true. Not on what other people tell us. Afterall, Jesus wrote such things on our hearts, didn't he?
In other words quit doing it your way and do it God's way.
I'm not doing it my way. God wrote His way upon my heart, don't you believe that? So, if I'm doing what my heart is telling me is honest and right... isn't that doing it God's way? I don't think that following what you say is following what's written on my heart.
We have had many conversations where you put being good and doing good things as your God.
Would you tell me what you base this belief on?
It is all based upon what's written on my heart as the right thing to do.
I honestly believe that it is good to help other people and bad to hurt other people. I have not heard of anything more important, even from the Bible. I have not heard of any higher-worthy priority to follow, even from ICANT or anyone else who's attempted to have me believe something that doesn't seem true.
It is my belief that trying to be good and trying to avoid hurting others is much more important than any knowledge of Jesus Christ or any other possible event or historic knowledge. Such things just seem to take away from helping those who require help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ICANT, posted 02-05-2010 1:38 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 8 of 30 (546971)
02-15-2010 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
02-05-2010 8:08 PM


So, North or South?
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
My preceeding discussion with iano has led to the following possibility that these two seemingly-different aspects are actually one-and-the-same, or maybe "one priority consisting of two parts" as iano puts it.
I would have to agree with iano on that point.
Okay. So, who would you visit first? The man in the North building or the man in the South building? Or, are you telling me that you would not visit either of them?
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
3. How many different times did Jesus identify himself to other people as the single necessary tool for salvation?
He did this very few times.
I thought so.
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
4. When attempting to teach others, would Jesus generally do both of these things? (Provide a parable and also identify himself as the single necessary tool for salvation?) If so, which did he do first?
the parable always came first.
Right.
I think he did things this way because this is what Jesus thought was more important. I think Jesus focused more on being a good person and loving your neighbour than he did on having faith in him or believing he was God.
Like you said, Jesus rarely identified himself as he'd rather let his message do the talking and have others make up their own minds about him. Shouldn't we do the same? Shouldn't we rarely identify Jesus Christ or any other background reasoning/information and focus on the message of being good and nice?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 02-05-2010 8:08 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 6:48 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 9 of 30 (546973)
02-15-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by iano
02-06-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Fish or Fishermen: that is the question
I'm not trying to divide between fish (non-evangelists) or fishermen (evangelist). I am trying to divide the importance of general knowledge of being a good person vs. specific knowledge about Jesus Christ.
iano writes:
1) At 'You are in the centre of a street' I take the 'You' to mean a fisher of men?
I mean "You" to be "anyone who would like to answer the question."
2) Are we to assume that the guy in the North building is currently lost? I don't believe a person necessarily has to have heard of Jesus Christ in order to be saved (I point to the characters in the Old Testament for precedence). Given that, and that a persons good works are not held as relevant to the issue of their salvation, we can't tell what this persons current status is.
No, you are not to assume anything. You are to accept the situation and make a decision. The situation is attempting to resemble real-life decisions. In real-life, we generally do not know what any stranger's "current status" is. Why should this question be any easier?
You can see my dilemma - there simply isn't enough information to answer your question.
Hopefully, you can see why it is this way... because you generally do not have such information in real-life anyway. What good is knowing what to do when you have all the information if you generally do not have any of the information when you need to make the decision in real-life anyway?
- good works don't result in salvation, no good works don't prevent salvation and no good works don't preclude one remaining saved once saved.
- "knowing Jesus Christ as your saviour" isn't a requirement for salvation. "Knowing Jesus Christ as your saviour", if the produce of eg: cultural Christianity, is salvifically useless .
Given the lack of specific information, both people can be considered 'potentially lost' for want of further info. Both occupy equal priority in the sight of a fisherman.
I agree. Jesus Christ and God can do whatever they like with their gifts of salvation. What does this have to do with whether or not we should try to be good people? It is not honourable to try and be a good person just because it's a part of salvation. In fact, one should really try to be a good person regardless of personal salvation. Doesn't that seem selfless? Isn't being selfless a good thing?
One of my favorite passages for his indicating salvation not only not by good work - but impossible by good work - is his dealing with the Rich Ruler at Luke 18. Yet this passage can be easily read from the perspective of Jesus pointing to salvation by works.
I'm really not trying to talk about salvation. I couldn't care less about what some God may or may not judge my life as. I care about being a good person. I think Jesus Christ cared about being a person. I think that Jesus Christ focused his morals and speeches on how to be a good person. I think that the Bible's talk of Jesus Christ as God and his death and resurrection is an attention-grabbing fireworks show in order to bring people over so that they can see Jesus' life and lessons on how to be a good person.
I do agree, though, that no one should try to be a good person in order to gain salvation. Such a thing is fake and obviously "not good". How can someone "be good" (selfless) if they are trying to attain salvation (be selfish)? It doesn't make any sense.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
Even if believing in Jesus Christ really is the only way for personal salvation, I still put being good and nice as a higher priority than my own salvation. Such a thing can be judged as stupid or honourable, but again, my convictions do not rest on how others judge such things.
It would more likely be judged as prideful - by God - if God is the one who has provided for your salvation in Jesus.
Perhaps. I don't think so, but I don't really care either.
When the God of Creation says that your righteous acts are as "filthy rags" and you disagree and call them stupid or honourable then you are placing your opinion regarding your good work above his.
I would never call God stupid. What I said is that God could call me stupid... and I just don't care.
Don't you believe that God wrote how-to-be-good on our hearts? So, if i follow what's written on my heart, honestly, isn't this then doing what God wants? How could it possibly be anything else?
We all do what we think is right. You may phrase it as "I'm doing what I think God wants me to do..." but it's still what you think is right. I can't just ignore what my heart is honestly saying is right and just take the advice of iano's heart... that doesn't move forward at all. That's simply lazy.
I am forced to do whatever it is I think is right until such a time that God enlightens me. It is possible that God may attempt to enlighten me through iano... but it is also possible that iano may attempt to lead me astray. So, again, I am left with doing what I honestly feel is right, until such a time that God illuminates His desires to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by iano, posted 02-06-2010 11:55 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 02-16-2010 12:27 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 11 of 30 (547093)
02-16-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peg
02-15-2010 6:48 PM


Re: So, North or South?
Peg writes:
Stile writes:
So, who would you visit first? The man in the North building or the man in the South building? Or, are you telling me that you would not visit either of them?
I would not differentiate between them, thats not a christians job. I would visit both but probably be able to spend more time with the nice person because a nice person would welcome the visit whereas the other guy would likely send me on my way.
the point is, we are not judges.
If you do not want to answer the question, that is acceptable. I understand that you would visit both, most people would. The question isn't whether or not you care to talk to both of them... the question is who do you go to see first?
If you are not a judge, how do you possibly post on this site or do anything at all? Obviously you're judging that posting on this site (or any of the other things you do) are acceptable behaviour, or (at least) something that you cannot avoid doing. If you would like to answer the question, please treat this situation in the same way as you treat all other aspects of your life.
It is acceptable if you don't want to answer, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peg, posted 02-15-2010 6:48 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 3:06 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 13 of 30 (547132)
02-16-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by iano
02-16-2010 12:27 PM


Re: Fish or Fishermen: that is the question
iano writes:
Either could be lost, either could be found.
Is your definition of "lost" something equivalent to "saved" or "knows Jesus Christ as personal saviour" or something like that?
If so, then your "lost" is equivalent to the "knowledge of Jesus Christ" I'm attempting to describe. If not, you'll have to describe what you mean by "lost" so that I can understand what you're talking about.
If finally lost, then all the "honour" of trying your best to do good turned out to only aid and abet your damnation - in which no honour will be found, only shame.
Perhaps. But without anything to show us definitively, we can't really say, can we? And again, we're left trying our best to do our best.
IF the God-given urging to do good is aimed only at illustrating for/to you that you can't actually live up to that urge. THEN twisting his intent so as to harmonise that urge with some or other contra-God philosophy isn't selfless or good. It's self-centred ("my philosophy should rule OK") and evil.
Agreed. But, so what? It's a huge "IF", don't you think?
IF the urge to do good is from an evil over-lord, then it's bad to do good things, right?
We can come up with "what if's" all day long. But without anything to show us definitively, we can't really say, can we? And again, we're left trying our best to do our best.
Dealing with the whole however, shouldn't cause you to arrive at this "Jesus was a moral teacher" terminus.
Oh? Are you able to show why?
Jesus' message did indeed exhort man to live a good live.
Or else
Which is where salvation raises it's head. You can't live the life he demanded. Which leaves you facing the 'or else'.
Or else
But I don't see this as the overall message in the Bible anywhere. Sure, there's bits and pieces that can be mashed together as support for such. But overall? If we look at what Jesus focused on, overall, he didn't focus on salvation or promoting himself as any single path for anything. He touched on those things... but didn't focus on them. He focused (spent most of his time with most of his listeners) on describing how to live a good life.
But, it doesn't really matter. There's entire religions based around something similar to your interpretation of the Bible, and entire religions based around something similar to my interpretation of the Bible. Obviously it's rather open to interpretation. Therefore... without anything to show us definitively, we can't really say, can we? And again, we're left trying our best to do our best.
You know what's right and why it's right. But you find you can't actually do it. Not all the time. I'm in the same boat as you. Everyone is.
Not quite.
I don't claim to know what is right at all.
I claim to be able show the reasoning behind what I think is right. Namely, that helping people is good and hurting people is bad. But I certainly don't claim to know what's right and wrong, that's impossible because right and wrong are not fundamentally objective ideas.
And how, precisely, do you deal with your doing what you know to be wrong?
By accepting that I made a mistake, learning from it,and trying to do better in the future. It's not an entirely new or difficult idea.
Now, you could do as I frequently did (although not even I could do it all the time) and suppress the knowledge that you've done wrong.
No, I don't do that. I would suggest that such a thing is foolish at best and personally destructive at worse.
Suppressing knowledge is always foolish. How can any mature adult expect to learn if they suppress knowledge?
And, if you suppress such things on a regular basis, you could develop a habit and accidentally begin suppressing some things you'd rather not suppress... which gets into the personally destructive aspect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by iano, posted 02-16-2010 12:27 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 02-17-2010 5:06 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 15 of 30 (547230)
02-17-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peg
02-17-2010 3:06 AM


Re: So, North or South?
Peg writes:
Exactly what are you asking?
Would i visit a person i knew was nice over a person i knew was not?
It's not about who you'd rather visit. The question is about who do you think requires more help. That is, do you think it's more important to help someone to become a nice person, or do you think it's more important to help someone gain knowledge of Jesus Christ.
From your answer I would guess that you would visit the guy who knows lots about Jesus, but isn't a very nice person. That way, you could inform him of how to be a better person.
But your answer also said that the two were equivalent. In which case, it's sort of a non-answer. I understand that "knowing Jesus Christ" can be simlar to "being a good person". What I'm trying to show is that drawing this similarity too far can bring about confusing issues.
The point of the question is to show the slight-difference in priorities.
If you first go to see the nice-guy-who-doesn't-know-Jesus-Christ, then you'd put a slight-priority on "knowing Jesus Christ" as opposed to being a good person.
If you first go to see the guy-who-knows-Jesus-Christ-but-never-helps-others-anyway, then you'd put a slight-priority on being a good person rather than "knowing Jesus Christ."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 02-17-2010 3:06 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 06-15-2014 7:56 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 17 of 30 (547341)
02-18-2010 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by iano
02-17-2010 5:06 PM


What would Jesus do?
And so our professing tower block friend may or may not be a Christian. His profession doesn't tell us enough.
Perhaps, yes. But his profession is all we will ever have to go on. Like you said, being lost or saved or whatever is all dependend upon God's definition. Not what Stile thinks God's definition is, and not what iano thinks God's definition is. In your analogy, we can check with the Irish passport authorities. With God, we cannot check what Stile thinks is God's definition vs. what iano thinks is God's definition.
And, again, we're left trying our best to do our best.
By all means carry on. You might appreciate why God could take a dim view on such ..er.. evasion.
Perhaps. Maybe you're right and God doesn't want us to try our best. I don't think so. But, again, we don't have a God to go and ask, do we? We have a Bible, history, and a vast array of religions. Taking all these into account we end up with Stile thinking God would appreciate us trying our best and iano thinking God wants something else.
So, sure, you could be right. But I think you're very wrong.
Again, we're left trying our best to do our best.
You are unable to show that what you say is definitvely true.
I thought I did. You're supposing Jesus some kind of moral teacher whilst failing to take account of two invariables:
1. - he (unlike you) never suggests that you should try your best. It's "do this, do that"
What does this have to do with Jesus being a moral teacher? Isn't it possible to be a moral teacher because the focus of one's teaching is on morals?
- he warns that if you don't do this or that then there's an "or else"
Yes, he does. But does he focus on it? How many moral lessons does Jesus preach about whenever he is surrounded by a significant number of listeners? How many times does Jesus warn about an "or else" whenever he is surrounded by a significant number of listeners?
You're missing the point. It's not about Jesus is a moral-teacher and never talks about "or else" type things. It's about Jesus focusing on his moral teachings and not focusing on his "or else" type things. Can you refute the actual arguement? Or are you only able to say that Jesus did indeed talk about "or else" type things? I already agreed to that a long time ago.
I'd be pretty doubtful you could sustain this particular view. You'd need to slice out Paul for a start since he's the one clarifying salvation by anything but works. Which is a pretty big "bits n' pieces" at about 1/3 of the NT.
Like I said, I'm no Bible scholar. Let's ask a few questions for clarification:
Did Jesus talk to large groups of listeners as reported by Paul?
Does Paul largely report Jesus talking to large groups about moral lessons (parables)?
Or does Paul largely report that Jesus preached about "or else" type things to significant numbers of listeners most of the time?
We're not discussing what Paul thinks. We're discussing what Jesus did.
Out of all the the things Jesus is reported on doing in the Bible while he has a significantly large audience of listeners:
Is Jesus largely reported as teaching moral lessons (parables)?
Or is Jesus largely reported as teaching "or else" types of things?
What does the Bible say Jesus focused on?
The question is not "can you find 'or else' types of things in the Bible."
The answer to that is clearly yes, but it doesn't answer what Jesus focused on when he had his largest audiences available to him.
Don't you think that if you had a priority message, that you'd bring it up whenever you were surrounded by your largest audiences?
The point is you can't do what you find yourself urged to do. You act against your own reasoning - despite supposing it your ultimate guide. And the result is hurt people. And you know this and won't (I hope) deny this.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
How do you not find your reasoning to be your ultimate guide?
Even if you're accepting what you think is God's plan as your ultimate guide... you're still using your reasoning to make that acceptance.
How can someone make any sort of decision (action or guide) without using their reasoning?
I think you're talking nonsense.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
Suppressing knowledge is always foolish. How can any mature adult expect to learn if they suppress knowledge?
And, if you suppress such things on a regular basis, you could develop a habit and accidentally begin suppressing some things you'd rather not suppress... which gets into the personally destructive aspect.
Supposing sticking a knife into someones chest a "mistake" involves a certain suppression of knowledge, don't you think?
Yes, I agree. What does this have to do with anything? Wouldn't you say that suppressing knowledge to allow one to think of sticking a knife into someone's chest as a "mistake" is at best foolish and at worst personally destructive?
I don't get what you're attempting to show here, unless you're agreeing with what I said.
We seem to have drifted. How to get on track? At present, I can't see a way to prioritise the building occupants - their views not necessarily producing salvation for them - with salvation being the ultimate priority.
I don't think this has drifted. You think that salvation is the ultimate priority. However, if we look at the life of Jesus, he doesn't focus his time and energy on explaining salvation.
When Jesus has a significantly large group of listeners around him, he doesn't talk about salvation, he talks about moral teachings... he talks in parables.
You are free to think that salvation is your highest priority. But I don't think such a thing is supported by Jesus Christ of the Bible. I'm not saying that Jesus never talks about salvation, or even looks down upon it in anyway. I think Jesus thinks very highly about salvation and that it is extremely important. However, it doesn't seem to be Jesus' ultimate priority.
Wouldn't you discuss your ultimate priority when any significantly large group of listeners comes to hear you speak?
Why doesn't Jesus explain salvation whenever such such a crowd gathers around him?
Why does Jesus spend the majority of his crowd-time on moral teachings?
Perhaps it is because Jesus prioritizes being a good and nice person above salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by iano, posted 02-17-2010 5:06 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Apothecus, posted 02-18-2010 1:03 PM Stile has replied
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 06-18-2014 1:18 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 19 of 30 (547351)
02-18-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Apothecus
02-18-2010 1:03 PM


Theatre of the Mind
Apothecus writes:
The words describing the "guidelines", I feel, are parsed just enough so as to offer the equivalent of a "Get out of jail free card" in most cases of "sin".
Yes, phrased just so everything that a church/religion-member does is forgiveable, yet everything someone not-of-the-church/religion does is unforgiveable.
But, really, it doesn't matter if Jesus is as I think he is, or if Jesus is as iano thinks he is, or whatever Jesus is really like, or if Jesus even existed at all. My personal feelings are that this entire thread is irrelevant as to why we should do good things, I'm just genuinely curious if any of the avid Bible readers can actually defend that Jesus was more focused on defining Salvation or defining moral teachings. It doesn't really matter one way or the other since the entire Bible doesn't matter one way or the other as far as my personal morality is concerned.
Everyone knows that Jesus talks about moral teachings in the Bible.
Everyone knows that Jesus talks about Salvation-by-grace in the Bible.
This thread isn't about which one makes more sense.
This thread is simply a genuine question that I don't know the answer to:
Which one did Jesus focus on?
What did Jesus talk about most when it mattered most?
What did Jesus take the time to tell other people when he had his most advantageous opportunities to reach those other people?
I really don't know. I'm defending the parable (moral teachings) side of things in more of a devil's advocate way than a personal-belief way. I really don't care what the answer actually is, but a lot of the answers given just don't make any sense to the questions I'm trying to ask.
I'll give you a hint: no one knows who goes to heaven and who doesn't.
Not only that, but no one knows if heaven even exists either
It's very difficult to base any logical argument upon something that cannot even be shown to exist in the first place. It's all based upon very quiet "what if's."
But I guess their ideas make for better theater, yes?
No one ever created a movie on "The Passion of Whatever-You-Think-is-Best"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Apothecus, posted 02-18-2010 1:03 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 21 of 30 (729603)
06-15-2014 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Phat
06-15-2014 7:56 AM


Re: So, North or South?
Topic Proposal:
quote:
You are in the centre of a street. You learn of two people, one in a building on the North side, the other in a building on the South side.
Person in North building - Is very adept at helping others yet does not know of any person named Jesus Christ, or anything about salvation (doesn't even know it's something he may be interested in or even exists).
-Think of the nice neighbour who just doesn't go to church or deal with religion in any way.
Person in South building - Has in-depth knowledge of Jesus Christ. Fully believes that Jesus Christ is his personal saviour and the only method for his salvation. However, he doesn't help other people.
-Think of the devout religious guy who still cuts people off in traffic and such.
Who do you go and talk to first?
Phat writes:
In light of our more recent conversations, I think that I would always put the priority on sharing Jesus Christ. The point that we are making is that the guy who claims to know Jesus does not, in actuality know Him.
I'm not sure I understand.
Did you answer the question? Or was this a way not to answer the question? It doesn't really matter, I'm not trying to force you to answer. I'm just letting you know that if you were trying to address the point of this thread, it's not clear to me.
The good news, Mr.Stile, is that people such as you who would rather just do what is "written on their heart" may be closer to knowing Jesus than many religious folk. Even though you don't slang Him, you slang love...which is the same thing, in an agape sort of way.
Perhaps. Or maybe I'm going to Hell
Either way... what happens to me by way of someone else's judgment is not my concern. I'm concerned with living this life I find myself in as best I can figure with what I can discover while I'm here. As long as I do that... I'll be content. Anything else will be... dissatisfying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Phat, posted 06-15-2014 7:56 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2014 2:31 PM Stile has replied
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 06-15-2014 3:10 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 24 of 30 (729636)
06-16-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by NoNukes
06-15-2014 2:31 PM


Re: So, North or South?
NoNukes writes:
What's the dilemma here?
It's been a while since this topic (April, 2010).
Unfortunately, I've forgotten my exact, specific frame of reference for creating this thread. There is a link to the thread that gave me the idea for it, though. Feel free to peruse if you're up for an investigation.
Best I can figure, I wasn't going for any sort of specific issue.
I was more just trying to frame a scenario and analyze the responses for discussion's sake.
That is, I was hoping to receive answers to the question and reasons for the answers. Nothing "right" or "wrong" about it.
A nice person may want to go hang out with the guy in the North building (good person, but doesn't know Jesus Christ) because they think they'll have more in common.
Or, maybe a nice person wants to go visit the South building (believes in Jesus but doesn't 'walk-the-walk') so as to talk with them and help them get back onto the narrow road.
I could have been curious to see if anyone actually found the South building person to be "a better person" than the North building guy... as some discussions on this forum seem to indicate. But this topic simply is what it is now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 06-15-2014 2:31 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 26 of 30 (729748)
06-18-2014 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phat
06-18-2014 1:18 AM


Re: Faith and Reason
Phat writes:
No. You are using your faith. Abraham never would have sacrificed his son Isaac based on what reasoning told him.
You are misunderstanding my use of the word "reasoning."
I do not mean "good, rational, evidence-based thinking."
I simply mean "personal thinking of any kind."
That is:
Abraham certainly was following his reasoning when he sacrificed his son Isaac. Abraham's reasoning informed him that "God knows best." If Abraham didn't think "God knows best"... then Abraham would not follow what God wanted him to do.
...it all comes down to what Abraham thinks... what his reasoning tells him.
That reasoning may or may not be based on evidence or rational-critical-thought... but it's still Abraham's reasoning based on Abraham's thoughts, feelings and personal experiences.
You seem to simply call that "faith."
If that's what the word means to you... that's fine.
But it's obvious that the choice was Abraham's based on Abraham's personal reasoning of the situation. Anything else would have God controlling Abraham... which is silly.
I see where the confusion is, though. You are using a strict definition of the word "reason" to mean some sort of structured based thinking. I was simply using it to mean "personal thinking (in any sense)." I have no problem changing the term "reasoning" to "thinking"... it makes no difference to the point I am attempting to make.
Stile now says:
quote:
How do you not find your thinking to be your ultimate guide?
Even if you're accepting what you think is God's plan as your ultimate guide... you're still using your thinking to make that acceptance.
You can even re-label "thinking" to "faith" if it makes you feel better.
The point is that you, personally, are making the decisions... We all make our own decisions. We don't all make our decisions based on the same criteria or process... but we do all make our own decisions.
If you're not making you're own decisions... then you're a lifeless automaton robot.
Therefore "God is my ultimate Guide" simply means "I have personally decided to accept God's guide as my own personal guide."
As opposed to someone else who might say "I have personally decided to accept xxx and yyy as my own personal guide."
There's no difference... everyone is using their own thoughts/ideas/experience/reasoning/thinking/faith to decide what to use as their own personal guide.
It doesn't matter what you call it... the point is that it's always individually and personally derived.
Therefore... this retort of "you're relying on you're own ideas... I'm relying on God's!!!" is just a bunch of bullshit.
We are all relying on our own ideas.
Some of us rely on our own ideas to accept what God says is valid.
Others rely on our own ideas to reject what God says as invalid.
Regardless of following God or not... we're all relying on our own ideas. You simply cannot get away from that unless you're going to accept that you are nothing more than a lifeless robotic shell with no free will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phat, posted 06-18-2014 1:18 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 28 of 30 (729826)
06-19-2014 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mike the wiz
06-19-2014 9:42 AM


Hi Mike, good to see you around again.
mike the wiz writes:
I think this is what it's all about these days - "let me live in peace, let me get out of life what I want in my own way, let me live then die, I'm not bothering you any!".
Ultimately these are self-motives. Even the nicest people aren't living for God's will, but their own. God's will is selfless because of sacrifice.
I completely agree with what you've written here.
I do disagree with the assumptions that seem to come from your context, though.
This sentiment you espouse here... it is alive and well in some atheists as much as it is alive and well in some Christians. Everyone must watch for it.
Some Christians are able to find a selfless life through God's will (and end up making sacrifices, as you say).
Some atheists are able to find a selfless life through living for other people instead of themselves (and also end up making sacrifices).
The issue is valid and does exist.
But it's not something limited to atheists or even "has a greater chance" with atheists.
It's just as common in Christians.
"I partied, I got a good job, raised a family, Lord."
Will not the Lord say;, "I could have chimps do that!"
Maybe He will.
Maybe He won't.
Maybe He'd say "I could have chimps pray in my name!" to Christians.
I don't know the mind of God.
You don't know the mind of God.
God will say whatever He says. Or nothing at all if He doesn't exist.
It's hard to explain. When you have the love of God, the self-life is gone. It's temporary.
You don't need to explain it. I've seen it. Many Christians live a very self-less life.
Of course... God isn't required for it either.
I've also seen the very same (and sometimes better) self-less life lived by atheists without "having the love of God."
You don't even need to believe in an afterlife in order to get rid of "the self-life."
God isn't interested in temporary activities, He is building a Kingdom, so when your body is dead meat, what will you have to show for your life? Are we living to entertain ourselves? Have we accepted an animal-standard?
I don't have a desire to "show something" for my life. I find the notion to be very selfish... "Look! Look!! Look what I did with my life!!! Accept my existence!!!" Such notions... even towards an all-powerful God... are very selfish and you should strive to stay away from them.
I think we are living in order to better ourselves and those around us.
I don't know what you mean by "animal-standard" so I cannot comment.
We are told in scripture that sin is deceitful, which means that EVEN NICE PEOPLE's morals are governed by their heart's desire, not a selfless one.
I agree that it's something we all (atheists and Christians and everyone) need to constantly watch out for.
The Kingdom of God is about a spiritual joy that is achieved through selfless acts, but if you are not born again, a selfless act can be irksome, bothersome, energy-consuming, boring. I remember all of these attitudes I had before I was born again, because even though I was nice, ultimately I was just an animal, because my spirit was switched off.
Some people do require "to be born again" in order to have motivation for selfless acts.
Other people do not.
Some people, when "born again" actually move towards even more selfish acts.
The point is to watch yourself being selfless vs. being selfish... not being born again or not... that obviously has no impact on the population in general.
I am not born again.
I do not have those attitudes.
I don't know if I'm "just an animal" or not (and I don't really care).
My spirit is definitely not switched off, it's quite healthy.
What does this mean?
Does this mean you are wrong... that being "born again" just isn't required?
Or maybe God smiles upon me without me knowing or being able to identify it in any way? Maybe "being filled with the Holy Spirit" isn't as electrifying as people say it is... maybe it's happened to me and I simply do not notice because it's just as normal as any other day?
I just try and show that the life of God is something that is the epitome of morality.
Sounds like a fantastic plan to me (your description of a God-filled, self-less life), I hope you succeed.
Sorry I really rambled on here Stile, I hope I haven't bored you, but I feel a bit inadequate, it is like trying to explain something without using English. You can only really know what I'm going on about if you also know God.
No worries. If you're going to ramble, this is as good a place as any to do so.
Maybe I have no idea what you're talking about.
Or maybe I know exactly what you're talking about and I also know that you're mistaken.
Everyone can play the game of "you have no idea what I feel or know!"
And it is equally useless for everyone (myself included) if you are attempting to show something about reality to another person.
My conclusion is that God's standard is met in Jesus Christ. That ultimately anyone who goes to God must go through Him.
"I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me." - Christ.
Everything in this quote is absolutely true... if Christianity is true.
That's the big question, though... isn't it?
(Sorry I rambled, I'm not debating, I'm just trying to provide the biblical theology and verses that you might have been looking for)
Thanks for your time and input, it's always nice to have someone to talk to.
Don't feel like you have to respond if you don't have time or whatever, I just ramble myself as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by mike the wiz, posted 06-19-2014 9:42 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 10-09-2017 11:21 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024