Two Christians in a boat...

[Im_A]

You have pointed out one of the ethics involved and a direction for their actions and decisions, but the question is more exacting. "What would they DO? (with more detail than merely "they would follow their ethics")

well i'd say, either one, they would try to save each other, hence the reason why i made my first response (because there may be two people who would want to follow the ethics in their religion that they prescribe to to the exact tee), one might try to save the other, maybe they would sit and pray and either die together or get miraclously saved or one would save themselves and forget about the other one.

there's no way to know what one would do, because the ethics are there and set and have been since Christ and even before Christ. it's up to the person to descide on how to administer them/if they will administer them or not.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

well i'd say, either one, they would try to save each other, hence the reason why i made my first response (because there may be two people who would want to follow the ethics in their religion that they prescribe to to the exact tee), one might try to save the other, maybe they would sit and pray and either die together or get miraclously saved or one would save themselves and forget about the other one.

I agree that the first effort to examine keeping with Christian ethics is that of each trying to save both. The difficulty in seeing how to do that leads to the temptation of giving up on trying to save both and examine efforts to save either individually.

The temptation to give up on the ideal is the leading cause of failure. Jesus said that you can defeat death. The surrounding Jewish leaders said, "No. You can't" Jesus had a rather difficult point to get across to people who really didn't want him to be right. When people do not want someone to be right, the temptation to conclude that he is wrong becomes a lust in their minds and they simply cannot see any evidence that might actually be right. They mentally turn away from the more difficult concepts to grasp simply because they don't want them to be right and it is easy to find excuses to accept what you prefer. This happens in discussion on the site minute by minute.

The desire to believe tempts conclusion into belief. The desire to disbelieve tempts conclusion into disbelief. It is only the strong insistence on humility to real truth that allows hard to grasp concepts to be seen. Moses removed his sandals without which he would never had been able to clearly see that burning bush much less the "voice of God" from within.

Removing sandals = letting go of your own understanding so as to be able to perceive something subtle or hard to mentally grasp.

Cleaning sandals = clearing up or clarifying an understanding so as to make it free from confusions and ambiguities.

To answer this small question proposed on this thread, you MUST "clean your sandals" or remove them entirely else you can not see what the Holy Spirit would tell the men in the boat. Not seeing the answer of how to save both, leads to the temptation of accepting death in the form of either or both of the men.

My question is, "Is there even one Christian humble enough to the Holy Spirit (that of Jesus) to be able to see the path that God has placed before these 2 men.

There being merely one, is sufficient call and cause for the entirety of Christianity to be saved (just as predicted). Having none at all, despite the presence of angels is reminiscent of Sodom.

If there is not even one who can answer this small question, then how many other difficult questions are being overlooked despite God's provided answers and paths to salvation from a host of seemingly impossible situations? Who justly turns to a religion that cannot answer to their needs nor even save themselves?

How can there be a miracle of doing the impossible if no one is humble enough to grasp it. Jesus preformed miracles because he was humble to the reality set before him when none others would see.

By Christianity being able to see the path out of this one situation, they can, together, ensure that such difficult situations seldom if ever occur. If they lust to the acceptance of failure, then they can ensure nothing but a struggle against their own blindness.

there's no way to know what one would do, because the ethics are there and set and have been since Christ and even before Christ. It's up to the person to decide on how to administer them/if they will administer them or not.

If you clearly understand how to respond in a tight situation before the situation occurs, then you can state what it is that you would attempt to do. Perhaps fear would keep you from really doing it. But I have asked merely what "should" they do being intelligent Christians.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

One of them could claim he is a minister, and pressure the other one into “donating” his half of the water to “Jesus who needs it”.

LLH

 

[ReluctantProphet]

One of them could claim he is a minister, and pressure the other one into “donating” his half of the water to “Jesus who needs it”.

LLH

You should apply for the office of "Pharisees to the Jews."

 

[Casstranquility]

Jesus would give the answer that would lead to both surviving.

I don't think so. To Jesus, life and death are the same. He said that when He proved it by "dying" and being resurrected. Death has no power, those in the boat might "die" but they would live.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I don't think so. To Jesus, life and death are the same. He said that when He proved it by "dying" and being resurrected. Death has no power, those in the boat might "die" but they would live.

You have contradicted yourself in this. What you have stated concerning Jesus is true. But you also say (by the "I don't think so") that Jesus only holds such continuance of life despite apparent death unto Himself and thus would conclude that any Christians in a similar situation would in fact truly die but that’s okay.

If Jesus can die without really dying, then why can't 2 Christians?

But more importantly, these being intelligent Christians means that they do not accept thier motives through mere faith totally void of any understanding at all, but rather clearly see and understand exactly what is to transpire so as to yield the saving of both.

What I am asking is an explanation of exactly how it could be that both actually do survive without any presumed magic or hocus pocus being injected into the understanding.

- CLEAN your sandals clear of the particles of dark mystery and blind acceptence of any unknown. Without this exercise, there can be no understanding of your Lord, how to truly accomplish the love that you are commanded to do, nor the ability to answer to the onslaught of the rising opponents of Christianity. Nor can you "spread the word" nor save the souls of the lost, if you haven't the compassion to learn the language and understanding of those who have become blind to your message.

Jesus did not seek to bring glorifying mystery to the blind, but clear sight. He did so with the dust from the Earth as well as His own issuances. To speak with an understanding that can not be understood by the listener is not saving anyone and damaging Christianity. Jesus exemplified better. Is there no Christian who listened and learned?

 

[Im_A]

If you clearly understand how to respond in a tight situation before the situation occurs, then you can state what it is that you would attempt to do. Perhaps fear would keep you from really doing it. But I have asked merely what "should" they do being intelligent Christians.

i still stand on my answer. that if there are two intelligent, faithful Christians stuck in a boat with only enough water for one to survive, i believe that the two intelligent Christians who know and want to fuflill their ethics in their religion to the fullest at all times.

but on the flip side, maybe the most "intelligent" manner would be for one person to save themselves, cause the other side would probably not fight back, and so the one would die, the other would have saved themselves, and then when they reach to shore, they can use the ethical beliefs of the radical grace theology taught by Paul, claim how their sinful nature lead them astray from Christ's teaching, apologize, and never get themselves into a situation like that again so they can prove "repentance."

 

[ReluctantProphet]

i still stand on my answer. that if there are two intelligent, faithful Christians stuck in a boat with only enough water for one to survive, i believe that the two intelligent Christians who know and want to fuflill their ethics in their religion to the fullest at all times.

I haven't argued with this. I am merely stating that in this, you have said no more than "they stay Christians". I agree, but the question was about what they DO while staying Christian. Your next sentence more properly addresses the question..

but on the flip side, maybe the most "intelligent" manner would be for one person to save themselves, cause the other side would probably not fight back, and so the one would die, the other would have saved themselves, and then when they reach to shore, they can use the ethical beliefs of the radical grace theology taught by Paul, claim how their sinful nature lead them astray from Christ's teaching, apologize, and never get themselves into a situation like that again so they can prove "repentance."

In this scenario, you said that one should save himself - by what means? The situation would imply that one could not save himself without the death of the other.

You then say "when they get to shore". How did they both get to shore? Or are you saying that one carried the body of the other with him?

The one who saved himself can aspire to repentance as long as he has a "change of heart" meaning that even in the exact same situation, he would not sin again. Repentance does not mean that you will try to avoid the situation unless it is getting into the situation that you are calling the sin.

 

[Im_A]

In this scenario, you said that one should save himself - by what means? The situation would imply that one could not save himself without the death of the other.

You then say "when they get to shore". How did they both get to shore? Or are you saying that one carried the body of the other with him?

The one who saved himself can aspire to repentance as long as he has a "change of heart" meaning that even in the exact same situation, he would not sin again. Repentance does not mean that you will try to avoid the situation unless it is getting into the situation that you are calling the sin.

i had some typos there. i apologize for the confusion and thank you for pointing them out

with the getting back to shore part, obviously there would only be one person, so apologize for the typo there.

i'm not saying i agree with the 2nd scenario. but the Gospel can be used as a self-survival mechanism in this situation you posted about in your OP.

Paul's message of radical grace, and being dead to sin since the fall of Adam would thus explain why a person (intentionally or un-intentionally) would choose to save their life over the person with them. then that person would either one have their conscience burdened by the rest of the trip, or by the time they get to shore, and lo and behold, they can make a "change of heart" and everything is wiped away. no one(but God i suppose) could judge the person because we could never know if he/she forced the other one to die either by pushing them off the boat (which would have to happen inevitably. Christian or not, but i doubt a person would like to have a dead body in the boat with them.) we could never know if their intent was to use this message for their own selfishness...specifically when examples of Christ's words, and even the temptations of Christ would lead someone to do the polar opposite reaction. all we would know is they had a change of heart to either one they would never get into that situation again because they dont' want to committ the same action again, or the next time, they'd be the one that would die.

and as you described the question, the only way this situation that one could save themselves without the death of the other is Divine Intervention. that is really obvious according to the outline of the whole hypothetical situation. now unless the boat was on freshwater or ocean water, that could be swayed or maybe after 40 days of them arguing over who gets saved, the Father will minister to them as the Father ministered after the temptation of Christ.

are you answer begging here? (i'm not meaning that in a bad way.) i mean your question in the OP is very direct. and as we see with Christianity there are many ethical routes to go(i'm saying "as we see" meaning throughout history). some that are good, and some that can be used for bad. so i personally don't see how this one real answer, cause the possibilities are out there, which inevitably shows us one thing...there is no one possible ethical standard in Christianity...especially after Paul wrote his epistles. the standards went away big time so the question to compare this with Christianity is a bit almost impossible to come to a real answer to. imho at least

God Bless you! <><

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..Paul's message of radical grace, and being dead to sin since the fall of Adam would thus explain why a person (intentionally or un-intentionally) would choose to save their life over the person with them. then that person would either one have their conscience burdened by the rest of the trip, or by the time they get to shore, and lo and behold, they can make a "change of heart" and everything is wiped away.

Regardless of anything that Paul might have said, the degree of actual forgiveness is proportional to the degree of actual change of heart to perfect alignment with the Holy Spirit. This fact cannot be changed.

no one(but God i suppose) could judge the person because we could never know if he/she forced the other one to die either by pushing them off the boat (which would have to happen inevitably. Christian or not, but i doubt a person would like to have a dead body in the boat with them.) we could never know if their intent was to use this message for their own selfishness...specifically when examples of Christ's words, and even the temptations of Christ would lead someone to do the polar opposite reaction. all we would know is they had a change of heart to either one they would never get into that situation again because they dont' want to committ the same action again, or the next time, they'd be the one that would die.

You are very correct that judgment is entirely up to God and any individual attempting judgment is necessarily at high risk of sin.

and as you described the question, the only way this situation that one could save themselves without the death of the other is Divine Intervention.

This is where you have sinned yourself. You have jumped to a false conclusion. Presumption or inaccuracy is the father to all sin. In this one statement you have expressed the only sin man has ever truly made and the only sin for which he is held accountable.

The real solution does not require the death of either. If you too quickly accept that one must die, then by your sin and impatience, you cause the death of one. How is this different than murder through negligence?

that is really obvious according to the outline of the whole hypothetical situation. now unless the boat was on freshwater or ocean water, that could be swayed or maybe after 40 days of them arguing over who gets saved,..

What is "obvious" is a function of the will to see and be humble to what is before you to be seen. It is equally obvious to me, that there should be no death at all in the proposed situation.

are you answer begging here? (i'm not meaning that in a bad way.) i mean your question in the OP is very direct. and as we see with Christianity there are many ethical routes to go(i'm saying "as we see" meaning throughout history). some that are good, and some that can be used for bad. so i personally don't see how this one real answer, cause the possibilities are out there, which inevitably shows us one thing...there is no one possible ethical standard in Christianity...especially after Paul wrote his epistles.

I am "begging" for the OP to be answered with a solution that requires no death because I see that solution and see that it s inherently Christian in make. Is that what you mean?

Isn't the best way truly available the only way that the Holy Spirit would advise and thus the way that the Christian would abide (assuming he made no error in his atempt to actually follow). The errors of Christians throughout history do not testify to a variety of right ways, but only to the difficulty involved in adherence to a right way. The "one right way" of the Christian is to focus on and adhere exactly to the lead of the Holy Spirit and none other. This in turn will lead to many more particular actions befitting the situation, but does not constitute new ways, but rather adherence to the one and only right way as it applies to the circumstances.

God Bless you! <><

..and You.

 

[Im_A]

Regardless of anything that Paul might have said, the degree of actual forgiveness is proportional to the degree of actual change of heart to perfect alignment with the Holy Spirit. This fact cannot be changed.

who's disputing this?

You are very correct that judgment is entirely up to God and any individual attempting judgment is necessarily at high risk of sin.

ok. thanks for agreeing.

This is where you have sinned yourself. You have jumped to a false conclusion. Presumption or inaccuracy is the father to all sin. In this one statement you have expressed the only sin man has ever truly made and the only sin for which he is held accountable.

The real solution does not require the death of either. If you too quickly accept that one must die, then by your sin and impatience, you cause the death of one. How is this different than murder through negligence?

the assumption came from your given situation. only enough water for one person to survive on. no one is perfect. that's something we all can most of the time agree on. so with that, we know the situation is for death to happen. because your situation didn't tell us that there was enough to split between the two. if that was the case, the hypothetical question would have been answered, and the poitn would have been idiotic to question the ethics of Christianity in that scenario. you gave us no explanation of what type of water source the boat is on. freshwater would make this philosophical point idiotic cause it isn't harmful to drink fresh water. ocean water? dehydration will kill before the person's inability to fulfill the words of Christ and the containments in the water.

so your philosophical question is really vague, leading only one to conclude that the most rational, logical reaction would be death of one, or both. if your relying on Christians to give miraclous answers of God stepping in, i would imagine one would need to give time and time of examples of this scenario actually happening.

if i sinned here in a discussion, then your the temptor for giving me no reason but to see it...especially since you say you have the answer one way to be godly eh? (sarcasm not meaning to be really personal )

What is "obvious" is a function of the will to see and be humble to what is before you to be seen. It is equally obvious to me, that there should be no death at all in the proposed situation.

I am "begging" for the OP to be answered with a solution that requires no death because I see that solution and see that it s inherently Christian in make. Is that what you mean?

Isn't the best way truly available the only way that the Holy Spirit would advise and thus the way that the Christian would abide (assuming he made no error in his atempt to actually follow). The errors of Christians throughout history do not testify to a variety of right ways, but only to the difficulty involved in adherence to a right way. The "one right way" of the Christian is to focus on and adhere exactly to the lead of the Holy Spirit and none other. This in turn will lead to many more particular actions befitting the situation, but does not constitute new ways, but rather adherence to the one and only right way as it applies to the circumstances.

..and You.

and what solution do you see? if you see one without death and in relation to a God that is beyond life and death itself, i think that solution is a bit trivial and a fleeting fantasy (unless there are sidenotes to the philosophical situation) and borderline pointless. and for any kind of miracle or whatever, first off, we have had enough miralces if one wants to recount the New Testament stories. number 2, we would need to see more of faithful followers praying and begging God to remain alive and then actually something miraclous actually happening. i'm not saying it's not possible, but i'm going to say it isn't likely just because what other reason do i have to believe that it would in ever case for this philosophical/hypothetical situation besides personal conviction?

 

[Faith In God]

Regards to the OP:

Whichever one is willing to sacrifice himself for the other will give up the supply for the other (or, if both, whoever speaks up first/is more emphatic to sacrifice himself).

The other would accept graceously. Otherwise he would demean the first's sacrifice, not a very loving thing to do.

[edit]I'm assuming, since this is hypothetical, we are ignoring the fact that if a supply of water isn't enough for two to survive to land that such an amount of time to land isn't exactly easy to calculate and "both continue on as is" isn't an option.

 

[Blackguard_]

The temptation to give up on the ideal is the leading cause of failure. Jesus said that you can defeat death.

And notice how he did that by dying first.

Is the answer that both die, but since they die Christian are raised at the general Ressurection?

But that involves miracles, which are disallowed.

What I am asking is an explanation of exactly how it could be that both actually do survive without any presumed magic or hocus pocus being injected into the understanding.

What you are asking is how to grant immortality to a mortal without a miracle.

who's disputing this?

I certainly don't agree with it. <Doesn't get the Paul hate thats so popular>

 

[ReluctantProphet]

who's disputing this?

I wasn't presuming dispute. I was merely trying to point out an unchangeable fact. I seldom, if ever disagree with Paul, although some statements made tend to be overly inconsiderate of detailed circumstances.

the assumption came from your given situation.

Statements of situations are not the cause of presumption, only an opportunity. The assumptions are up to the impatience of reader.

..so your philosophical question is really vague, leading only one to conclude that the most rational, logical reaction would be death of one, or both. if your relying on Christians to give miraclous answers of God stepping in, i would imagine one would need to give time and time of examples of this scenario actually happening.

Again, assumption on your part. I agree that the situation would appear to the casual reader as one where death is unavoidable. But what would be the point in focusing on such if in fact there wasn't something more to be gained than the casual conclusions. If Jesus' message was merely to "do the obvious", then I'm sure he would have gotten along with the Jews a lot easier and you would know nothing of His name today.

if i sinned here in a discussion, then your the temptor for giving me no reason but to see it...especially since you say you have the answer one way to be godly eh? (sarcasm not meaning to be really personal )

Oh but I have given you a reason to see beyond the obvious, else you would have joined the others who merely blew it off as nothing important enough to attend.

and what solution do you see? if you see one without death and in relation to a God that is beyond life and death itself, i think that solution is a bit trivial and a fleeting fantasy (unless there are sidenotes to the philosophical situation) and borderline pointless. and for any kind of miracle or whatever, first off, we have had enough miralces if one wants to recount the New Testament stories. number 2, we would need to see more of faithful followers praying and begging God to remain alive and then actually something miraclous actually happening. i'm not saying it's not possible, but i'm going to say it isn't likely just because what other reason do i have to believe that it would in ever case for this philosophical/hypothetical situation besides personal conviction?

The solution that I am referring to contains no magical elements. And could only be said to be miraculous in that so many thought it impossible, yet there it is.


I DO seriously apologize for not being able to simply state it. I have need to know if ANY Christian can answer the question without my input (or much of it). If none can, I will still state the answer although I would be certain that none would have the will to actually see the truth in what I state. This is what you see going on in all of these threads. Few want to see anything but support for what they have already concluded regardless of its accuracy.

The solution is really there. Can any Christian ANY where see it?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Regards to the OP:

Whichever one is willing to sacrifice himself for the other will give up the supply for the other (or, if both, whoever speaks up first/is more emphatic to sacrifice himself).

This would yield entropy in favor of the least giving Christian. The one most willing speaks up first and dies for doing so. That would leave future generations gradually becoming less willing and very shortly the clever would learn to simply wait and thus declare the better Christian to be the one who doesn't jump into self-sacrific. This could be good, but leads to the point that both Christians end up merely waiting for the other to speak up. In effect, it returns Christianity to a pre-Jesus Judaism.

I'm assuming, since this is hypothetical, we are ignoring the fact that if a supply of water isn't enough for two to survive to land that such an amount of time to land isn't exactly easy to calculate and "both continue on as is" isn't an option.

It could make a valid response to the question, but you're right, it would merely presume the death of both.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

And notice how he did that by dying first.

But died of away from what?

Is the answer that both die, but since they die Christian are raised at the general Ressurection?

They need not truly die at all and thus need not wait for the general resurrection.

But that involves miracles, which are disallowed.

True

What you are asking is how to grant immortality to a mortal without a miracle.

That is about like saying that by a Doctor healing the sick, he must be a prophet of God. Or that arranging that man can fly, you must be God Himself.

...a bit too presumptuous.

I certainly don't agree with it. <Doesn't get the Paul hate thats so popular>

I wasn't inferring that Paul was incorrect. The Paul "hate thing" going on is due to the combination of general anti-Christian promotion by the new age social engineers and the feminist promotion who noted that Paul specifically forbid women from speaking in church.

 

[Blackguard_]

But died of away from what?

He died from bloodloss and suffucation. Or did you mean "away from what?" Away from god's/his own protection would solve the boat problem with a miracle.

That is about like saying that by a Doctor healing the sick, he must be a prophet of God. Or that arranging that man can fly, you must be God Himself.

...a bit too presumptuous.

So you're saying there's a non-miraculous wasy to grant immortality to mortals? You already said scraping the bottom of the barrel wouldn't work, so thats the only kind of solution I can see working.

The Paul "hate thing" going on is due to the combination of general anti-Christian promotion by the new age social engineers and the feminist promotion who noted that Paul specifically forbid women from speaking in church.

yeah, and the funny thing is Bible scholars don't even think Paul wrote the letter forbidding women to speak in church.

 

[Im_A]

I certainly don't agree with it. <Doesn't get the Paul hate thats so popular>

who hates Paul? i have criticisms of Paul. doesn't mean i hate him and i don't think RP hates Paul.

 

[Blackguard_]

who hates Paul? i have criticisms of Paul. doesn't mean i hate him and i don't think RP hates Paul.

I didn't mean anyone in this thread ahtes paul, just a general annoyance with some Christians. Some Christians seem to think Paul hijacked Christianity and/or they pit him against Jesus. This seems to come up when faith vs. works comes up. 'hate' was probably too strong a word though. RPs "regardless of what Paul might have said" reminded me of this peeve of mine.

Don't act like you don't hang out in Liberal Theology Tsaint.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

The first clue was “Neither must truly die”

The second clue;

“You are either with me or against me.”
“Where 2 gather in my name, I am there.”
How many are in the boat?

DO NOT merely attempt to jump to conclusion from this point.