Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Would you give up your place in heaven...
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 3 of 113 (452415)
01-30-2008 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by cavediver
01-30-2008 6:25 AM


Sounds like a bargain but....
cavediver writes:
...if it meant that ten others destined for everlasting torment could be granted a place in heaven?
No.
My reason for not doing so involves my respecting their hearts desire - just as God will have done in consigning them to Hell. There will be no one in Hell who didn’t choose (in effect) to go there.
Let's say that these ten are some of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth - they just happened not to choose Jesus as their saviour. Perhaps they are atheists, hindus, devout muslims, whatever - they have all heard the Christian message and rejected it for one reason or another.
According to God’s standard, all people are steeped to the neck in the filth of sin - from the most “moral” to the least. If it were possible to set aside the insurmountable issue of their will (above) then I would gladly* stand in the place of any 10 people you care to pick. I’d be as happy with 10 murderers / paedophiles / rapists / evolutionists () as I would with 10 of the most selfless, moral, charitable people you could find.
I’m with God on this one. Spiritually speaking, I see no moral distinction.
*gladly... but on two conditions
a) that I didn’t first get to see what Hell is like close up
b) my decision, taken before I got to see it close up, is final.
It’s one thing to read about it and imagine it through a glass darkly. I suspect I wouldn't be quite so willing were my nose pressed between the bars of the entrance gate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2008 6:25 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 07-14-2008 12:45 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 6 of 113 (452420)
01-30-2008 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Creationista
01-30-2008 10:04 AM


Re: Giving it up.
creationista writes:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly
Clearly that passage doesn't apply here. The persons "alms" will result in them being in Hell.
Some reward.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 10:04 AM Creationista has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 10:12 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 8 of 113 (452425)
01-30-2008 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Creationista
01-30-2008 10:12 AM


Re: Giving it up.
Indeed it is not in question. The verses you offer tell us precisly what will happen. Charity in secret attracts reward. Charity given in public attracts none.
The OP offers simple exchange (were it possible). We're not dealing with all kinds of hypotheticals. Your bible verses do not apply in this case

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 10:12 AM Creationista has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 10:37 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 10 of 113 (452436)
01-30-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Creationista
01-30-2008 10:37 AM


Re: Giving it up.
The verses always apply. The answer is, anyone who would say yes wouldn't say yes in this thread.
If the verses apply they tell us that there is certain to be no reward for this "public charity" of mine. Clearly I wasn't expecting any. What's the problem?
I've said yes in this thread so that point is refuted.
Any question of seeking reward is off point. Reward should never be the reason you do anything.
See above. Reward was not the expectation nor motivation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 10:37 AM Creationista has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 11:29 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 12 of 113 (452440)
01-30-2008 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Creationista
01-30-2008 11:29 AM


Re: Giving it up.
Actually, you said no, and then dithered, and then changed your mind. Then you said 'Only if I won't really understand how bad Hell will be until it's too late.' That's like giving away someone else's money.
Oop's. If that's how you read what I wrote then I'll forego attempting to clarify things for you..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Creationista, posted 01-30-2008 11:29 AM Creationista has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 23 of 113 (453101)
02-01-2008 12:10 PM


Changed my mind?
The prime commandment is "love God with all your heart, soul and mind". Thereafter "love your neighbour as yourself".
The motivation for giving up ones own place in heaven for 10 otherwise damned members of my family would be love for them. "Greater love hath no man for another than that he lay down his life..." for example
But what about my love for God? Is my love for God greater than my love for family?
If faced with a choice and given the greatest commandment would I not have to focus on my love for God and turn away from my love for family?
Is not obeying God's commands always the best thing to do?

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 07-04-2008 12:32 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 113 (474391)
07-08-2008 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by ikabod
07-08-2008 3:22 AM


quote:
if ten of the most selfless, moral, charitable people on earth considered and rejected the message .. then it is a failing of the message not the people ....
Or Cavedivers estimation of what constitutes selflessness amd morality differs somewhat from Gods idea of same. If these people are in fact, lovers of evil and insist in their refusal to love the truth - then the message they shall not get. For the message itself is truth.
The message says (amongst other things) that you have evil in your heart and no matter how selflessly you act that evil cannot be got rid of. That no matter how morally you try to act you know the immorality that resides within you.
Sticking your head in the sand isn't the messages fault. And the message won't face the consequences of persisting in doing so to the bitter end
quote:
not the maker of silly rules ...
Those silly rules happen to be the very things that will assist in saving you (in the event that you are finally saved). Or they will be the thing that will condemn you - in that case.
Your conscience is your rule giver in anycase. Gods law delivered to your door. I'm sure it's not silly you consider it after breaking it's law. Guilt and shame are more likely companions.
If not, you have reason to fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 3:22 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 5:56 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 41 of 113 (474394)
07-08-2008 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Vacate
02-19-2008 11:23 PM


quote:
if there really is such a thing as Hell then God really is as petty as most portray Him to be.
Suppose for a moment that conscience is actually Gods voice (or influence) in-our-head. These "moral and selfless people", when they are acting morally and selflessly, are actually empowered by the urge placed there by God. He itches, they scratch - and the credit for their goodness goes to God. When they are not acting morally and selflessly (for no one is perfect) they are only willfully suppressing and rejecting the voice of conscience that tells them that they ought to be doing otherwise. Sometimes their conscience might be screeching at them - yet they suppress it and ignore it in order to have their wicked will done. The credit for their evil goes to them.
If Hell is an existance without the presence of God it is safe to suppose that the person in Hell will have no conscience anymore. God will have totally left: lock, stock and barrel. All that will be left is a person whose heart is evil without the restraint of conscience. There will be no redeeming features that impart even the merest iota of that which makes humanity attractive. They will be totally ugly - like one of those despicable creatures featuring in Lord of the Rings or Narnia. They would be impossible to even pity them, so ugly will they be.
So much for pining away for loved ones who end up in Hell.
If Hell is a place where Gods love isn't and if Hell is a place a person only ends up in due to their hearts desire - then your objection must struggle. God granting a persons hearts desire cannot be described as a petty act. Respectful of the humanity he gave them (and whose final act of respect is, ironically, to take that humanity away again) - but not at all petty.
It's a very serious business this life. But then, we all know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Vacate, posted 02-19-2008 11:23 PM Vacate has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 42 of 113 (474395)
07-08-2008 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ikabod
07-08-2008 5:56 AM


quote:
and here is the issue .. either we have a agreed measure of what constitutes selflessness amd morality , i am avoiding the "absolute" word here .. or we can never know if what we are doing is "right" .. either we can be our own critic .. or its just a mean game with hidden rules .....
The issue is whether the righteous acts of a person are attributable them - making them the most selfless people in the world. Or whether the credit for their righteous acts goes to God. Believers in the Biblical God attribute their righteous acts to Gods influence and give glory to him. Unbelievers attribute their own righteous acts to themselves.
quote:
Now i very carefully stated the Ten had considered the message .. they looked and found the message wanting ..and yet they still followed the path of good deads .. clearly without any hope of reward ... where as if they HAD accepted the message then they would have foreseen a expectation of a reward .. thus lowering the degree of their selflessness .. so have they not done the greater more noble thing of doing what is right for no gain .. compared to a belive of the message .
The selfless person carrying out righteous acts does so because of Gods call upon them urging them to do so. Their conscience pricks them into action. The conscience is Gods voice and empowerment and the credit is thus Gods. The persons reward is a salved conscience at the very least. And the satisfaction that comes from loving others perhaps.
The believer can do good acts motivated by the reward he will get (which the Bible tells him that he will not get, in that case) or out of a convicted heart similar to the heart of the selfless unbeliever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 5:56 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 9:05 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 113 (474426)
07-08-2008 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ikabod
07-08-2008 9:05 AM


quote:
to me any act that needs the prompting of someone else is no a truly selfless act
Which is why, perhaps, Jesus said that only God is good.
I'm not sure from which source you suppose godless-good-acts to otherwise come from though: upbringing, influence of society, genetics? Are you not still co-reliant on something/someone else for the good act. As I am?
-
quote:
if you have to refer to a book to act in a "correct" way then you are defering to anothers values ...instead of coming to the right values yourself
That I conclude there to be no improving on his values and that I chose to adhere to his values doesn't render me different than yourself. You arrive at and adhere to whatever values you arrive at and chose to adhere to - just like I do. At the end of the day, we lie in the bed we make for ourselves.
-
quote:
Unbelievers attribute their own righteous acts to themselves.
quote:
not the selfless ones .... they attribute their righteous acts to the Need that those act are done ..... and for no other reason.

The need where? The need that arises in them that those acts be done, I suggest. Seeing as there is no one beyond themselves (they suppose) the need can be only sourced within themselves. And so the righteous acts that follow are attributable only to that need arising in themselves. Attributable to themselves thus, making the act a self-righteous one.
-
quote:
At the risk of going way off topic ... what about all the people born before the message was given .. by your rules none of them could have avoided hell ...
Not so. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation - not just words on a page or the call of a street evangelist. Abraham was saved by the gospel of God - and he lived long before Christ and the good news concerning him.
You might be confusing me with people who say that you must hear and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ (as commonly communicated) in order to be saved. Their rule isn't my rule.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ikabod, posted 07-08-2008 9:05 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 12:43 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 113 (474433)
07-08-2008 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by rueh
07-08-2008 12:43 PM


quote:
I believe your supposition is way off here. The other people around them would be where the need is sourced from. They may suppose that there is no higher power but not that there is no one else other than themselves that may need assistance. The act would then be not one of self righteousness but of selflessness. Since they are acting for the benefit of others for the others good alone.
They are responding to a need that arises in themselves. If it didn't (and it doesn't in the person next to them who passes the situation unconcernedly by) then the good act wouldn't follow.
It't their conscience that is pricked by the external-to-them situation. Their compassion that cannot turn away. Something in them lies at the root.
And if no God beyond them then the buck stops with them: at the trigger within themselves that fires off the "good" act. That's what I mean by self-righteous. The righteousness derives from the need to satisfy something within the self.
I can't see much to applaud to be honest (if looking at things through unbelieving lens). What formed them: society, upbringing, genetics? What credit does a person take for such things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 12:43 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 1:17 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 48 of 113 (474447)
07-08-2008 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by rueh
07-08-2008 1:17 PM


quote:
These are the exact same circumstances that formed your thoughts and emotions. You may attribute them to god but your actions to any given situation is the same pre-programmed response as anyone else. You are a product of your enviroment.
If actually inhabited by the Holy Spirit of God then I am a product of something other than you assert. And the mechanics of that scenario would be quite different from the mechanics which the unbeliever cannot avoid. But this isn't about me in the first instance, it's about these good deeds - which are actually deeds arising out of that which is a product of it's environment (according to the unbeliever). The self being a product of it's environment, a complicated machine, the righteousness is self-righteousness. Or product-of-it's-environment-righteousness if you prefer.
Little cause to applaud it in any case.
quote:
If you were raised with high morals than you will most likely continue to express those morals in your actions. If you were raised in a, lets say less than moral enviroment, than you will display these same attributes. Until some external trigger comes along to make you rethink your own ethics.
I wouldn't argue against that. So much for applauding the selfless person over the selfish person then..
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by rueh, posted 07-08-2008 1:17 PM rueh has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ikabod, posted 07-09-2008 3:39 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 50 of 113 (474530)
07-09-2008 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ikabod
07-09-2008 3:39 AM


quote:
Iano it think you are getting very close to stating a case for the non-exsistance of good and evil.
I am drawing the conclusions I think the unbeliever must come to. His "good" acts or "evil" acts are acts that arise out of a "need" within himself. He scratches whichever itch happens to arise. Seeing as those itches arise only naturalistically (in the eyes of an unbeliever) one wonders as to why the applause. Applaud a persons good acts because they were brought up with a moral framework that would ensure those acts occurred? Or happen to have a genetic makeup that makes such acts more likely?
Paradoxically, you yourself seem to consider absolute good and evil to exist. Certainly your indignation as to Gods potential treatment of what you consider a good person indicates as much. The definer of absolute good in this case being, of course, you.
-
quote:
If one has to follow the message and its rules then one passes the justification for any law, or action driven by that law , into the hands of the giver of the message
I don't have to follow Gods rules. I want to and attempt to and very often fail to - but then again, I'm a child of his and my relationship to the law of God is other than an unbelievers relationship to it.
You (as an unbeliever, I presume) don't have to follow Gods laws either, if you don't want to. The fact you break them every day is proof positive that you don't have to.
Your point isn't clear to me otherwise. Could you reword it?
-
quote:
... good becomes following someone elses path , because they tell you that is the correct way ...and to be a beliver requires you not to question ...
We all have to follow some path or other. We both chose which one. In my case the path I attempt to follow is defined by God. In your case it's an assembly of bits drawn from various sources and influences. How each path is made up is not the main point, that we chose the one we follow, is.
-
quote:
I personally think we have the ability to reason ... to look at something and to determine good and bad
Determine good or bad against which measure? If it's your own measure, and your own measure can alter to suit your book then all you're saying is that; what you reason to be right is right and vice versa.
The good samaritan and the paedophile can operate in precisely the same way.
-
quote:
.. we can then choose how to act ..within our limited abilities ...and to accept the blame when we get it wrong ..no get outs
Seeing as it is down to the (unbelieving) individual to decide whether they have done right or wrong and the meausure is the measure they themselves choose to apply, forgive me if I'm not all that impressed.
The person who considers themselves to have done wrong makes a choice to consider so. The person who considers themselves to have done no wrong makes the choice to consider so. The same act can be viewed by the one as evil and the other as not evil - simply by applying their respective choices.
But was it evil?
-
quote:
..i come from a nasty environment .. of i did belive the correct way .... it is that old idea that free will is not really free if someone stands in the wings holding up the correct answer for you...
One thing that Gods standard says to me is that I, unlike you, don't need to fumble around in the dark wondering what is right and wrong anymore.
I, unlike you, haven't the luxury of a) considering something I've done then b) deciding to reconfigure my moral framework so that what I previously considered wrong is now not wrong. I'm not saying you do this, but I'm saying you can do this if you like. Indeed, there is nothing stopping you doing this given that right and wrong can be whatever you chose them to be, whenever you chose them to be.
Knowing the correct answer doesn't mean I always do the right thing. I'm a sinner and it is the tendency of believing sinners to know what is right yet do the wrong thing. How much harder to know for sure you've done the wrong thing, than know you can always reconfigure your morals so that you are always right - whatever any other moral relativist might say?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ikabod, posted 07-09-2008 3:39 AM ikabod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RickJB, posted 07-09-2008 7:02 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 113 (474534)
07-09-2008 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RickJB
07-09-2008 7:02 AM


quote:
Believers can just as easily reconfigure and reinterpret God's standpoint to suit their own ends, thus absolving them from any wrongdoing.
I was talking about myself. I know what stealing is and I know it's wrong. And I wouldn't be able to reinterpret Gods word on the matter to suit my own book - even when I steal.
He won't let me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RickJB, posted 07-09-2008 7:02 AM RickJB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ikabod, posted 07-09-2008 8:35 AM iano has not replied
 Message 55 by rueh, posted 07-09-2008 12:16 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 58 of 113 (475213)
07-14-2008 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by rueh
07-09-2008 12:16 PM


rueh writes:
But you could use it for the purpose of killing? Many have used their religion to justify any action they want. These are just examples from the OT
Your conflating Religion and Scripture - in my view. Of course you might say that there is no difference - in which case our disagreement would revolve around difference in definitions.
Take this:
quote:
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "
Moses is reporting what God said - in which case it is not Religion who is instructing the killing but God. Or at least Gods mouthpiece: Moses. Ditto the other biblical examples.
-
quote:
Are you saying the jews were not justified for killing in the name of their god?
If instructed to do so by God then they are, of course, justified. Justified by him, the highest court in the land ... and beyond.
-
Sorry but I just don't believe that your individual belief justifies your actions or makes you any more moral than anyone else.
Clearly God instructing the killing of others (even if the his instruction is delivered to the people through Moses) would not be an unrighteous thing - seeing as God can only act righteously by definition. Moses obviously wouldn't be acting unrighteously in carrying out Gods instructions - it's in the disobeying of Gods instructions that a man acts unrighteously afterall
Similarily, any act of mine which is seen by God as righteous is righteous irrespective of what you believe about it. As it happens my many unrighteous acts are forgiven and forgotten. And the many 'righteous' acts of yours don't amount to a hill of beans if you come to stand before a holy God in your sin.
It might not sound fair. But it is fair - it's the way God has it.
This is what I believe.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by rueh, posted 07-09-2008 12:16 PM rueh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by rueh, posted 07-14-2008 8:19 AM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024