Would you do this sacrifice?

Eudaimonist said:

Okay, then how would you react to the following scenario:

You are given the option to give up your own seat in heaven in order for someone else to gain heaven. You will get hell instead.

Do you sacrifice your eternal happiness so that someone else will gain eternal happiness.

If that isn't interesting enough, let's say that your sacrifice is for two people to gain eternal happiness.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I wouldn't take the deal. The cost on my end would be too great for me to accept it. They are responsible for their own actions and even the most self sacrificing person has their limits.

Aye.
What would you do if it turned out that the universe was ruled by an entity that could only be described as malevolent (to humans)? Said entity is virtually invincible, yet some small opposition is possible - albeit it almost always ends with you being sent to a cosmic torture camp, due to the Authority's vast knowledge and power.

Would you collaborate with the evil entity if it promised you better treatment than virtually everybody else for as long as you did its bidding? Or would you try the impossible and "do the right thing", even if it most likely costs you everything?

You know, most theistic world views tend to be HILARIOUSLY anthropocentric. Even if they profess that they're all about God(s), they're really all about us: you can tell this by just how much importance is given to our species and its dealings in each of these cosmologies.

But given that the gap that separates us from cattle, insects, or even amoebae is infinitely smaller than the gap that'd separate us from a genuine divine entity, it stands to reason that such a being would hardly give us more notice or courtesy than we grant to those life forms.

Unless such a being wanted to do that.

LoAmmi said:

Unless such a being wanted to do that.

Click to expand...

And yet, the relationship would not be all that different from a human studying ants in a terrarium.

Jane_the_Bane said:

And yet, the relationship would not be all that different from a human studying ants in a terrarium.

Click to expand...

Unless such a being desired a closer relationship. Why are you removing the will of this being you are imagining to determine for itself what it finds important or worthwhile?

Jane_the_Bane said:

You know, most theistic world views tend to be HILARIOUSLY anthropocentric. Even if they profess that they're all about God(s), they're really all about us: you can tell this by just how much importance is given to our species and its dealings in each of these cosmologies.

But given that the gap that separates us from cattle, insects, or even amoebae is infinitely smaller than the gap that'd separate us from a genuine divine entity, it stands to reason that such a being would hardly give us more notice or courtesy than we grant to those life forms.

Click to expand...

I would say that an extremely large portion of the Bible speaks of a God who does care about humanity, (or at least some of humanity), and has quite a few human-like characteristics Himself.

The same Bible speaks very, very little about Omnipotence, Omniscience, and any of the other characteristics you might be thinking of which would make God into a divine creature who cannot relate to us. In fact, I think the type of God you are referring to was first discussed by Plato... who was a Pagan, not a Christian (or a Jew!)

Seriously, if you feel that your faith is all about saving your own behind and securing a cozy place in the blessed afterlife, then you are the worst sort of egotistical opportunist.

Click to expand...

This is so very true.

If religion is all about avoiding hell and entering heaven, and that's why people are motivated to be religious - well that's a very small and petty reason to motivate someone.

Love for others, making the world more heavenly, creating beauty, serving the cause of reality and truth and knowledge - all are more noble motivations.

This is so very true.

If religion is all about avoiding hell and entering heaven, and that's why people are motivated to be religious - well that's a very small and petty reason to motivate someone.

Love for others, making the world more heavenly, creating beauty, serving the cause of reality and truth and knowledge - all are more noble motivations.

Click to expand...

I find the search for knowledge about the self the greatest use of religion. If I am honest I must say that love, compassion and all that just don't interest me outside the people I know. That said a great side effect of understanding religion and gaining knowledge is you see others for what they truly are, and that does lead, unconsciously, to more compassion.

But yes I agree that religion to 'save your soul from hell' seems like a waste.

AskTheFamily said:

Suppose you were given a choice.

Continue living as a normal person, die, don't come back, and when you die, you enter heaven provided you weren't super evil.

The other choice is that you are given powers and so much knowledge and given ability to live for a very long time (like 30 000 years) and you would be able to solve all the world's problems with your powers and knowledge but the downside to it, is that once you die, you will be tortured for eternity. The torture will be severe as the severest description of hell possible.

Would you live on normally or would you do the sacrifice for the knowledge, powers, and lifespan and solve the world's problems?

Be honest.

Click to expand...

First off: Satan does not have to pay that huge some to get people to avoid accepting God’s charity.

People will do almost anything to be prideful/selfish and avoid accepting charity.

We are not going to nor could we “solve the world’s problems”. We in our life time (with 36 adult years) could turn the world upside down, giving everyone the opportunity to spend all the time they would like one on one with Christ on earth, but that would not “solve the world’s problems”. This world is like it is to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective.

I would die and go to Heaven. Ultimately, this world doesn't truly matter all that much- certainly it doesn't matter enough to spend an eternity in torture for. Nothing matters that much.

Jane_the_Bane said:

Seriously, if you feel that your faith is all about saving your own behind and securing a cozy place in the blessed afterlife, then you are the worst sort of egotistical opportunist.

Click to expand...

This point that Jane brings up pretty much hits at the heart of my de-conversion.

.

Clearly some of you have no grasp whatsoever of what it means to suffer in hell for all eternity.

But if it makes you feel better to judge me for wanting to take care of my own eternity first before considering the needs of others, then fine.


In Christianity the first commandment is to love God, and second is to love your neighbor. If that makes us no better than Satanists... I'm still ok with it! I personally don't take pride in being the most selfless person on the planet.


I think the Apostle Paul's statement that he was willing to trade his own salvation for the benefit of others was an exceptional example of self sacrifice. Not the norm, and certainly not a baseline standard that anyone who is unable to offer the same is "the worst sort of egotistical opportunist."

Tobias said:

Clearly some of you have no grasp whatsoever of what it means to suffer in hell for all eternity.

Click to expand...

I bet most people do have a grasp of eternal damnation and it's something they pondered over and over. Many people here used to be Christians and dealing with the idea of 'Hell' and 'eternal suffering' was part of the 'de-conversion/de-programming' process.

Jane_the_Bane said:

And I've got to ask: how can you be so selfish? Seriously, if you feel that your faith is all about saving your own behind and securing a cozy place in the blessed afterlife, then you are the worst sort of egotistical opportunist.

Click to expand...

I have never properly understood that accusation about christians. I have a lot to say on dark side of christianity, but the idea of getting into heaven isn't one of those bad things.

For comparsion, I don't see how securing ones own food is super-egoistical, rather it's normal human nature. Same goes for will to get in the afterlife. It's egosentric, hardly saintly, but rather normal way of thinking imo.

Also, christian theology doesn't suggest that securing your own salvation makes world in any way more miserable. Rather it's often understood as startpoint to some possiblities of making it better for others aswell. However well that works in practise is another story, but I'm under impression that we are talking about motive here, not the outcome.

JackofSpades said:

I have never properly understood that accusation about christians. I have a lot to say on dark side of christianity, but the idea of getting into heaven isn't one of those bad things.

Click to expand...

The idea of getting into heaven isn't one of those bad things in and of itself, but it gains rather sinister undertones when it is put in specific contexts:
The question in the OP basically went along the lines of: "Would you rather help billions of others, or instead choose the route that brings *you* the maximum profit?" (Granted, the hypothetical is somewhat uneven, insofar as you trade *temporary* gain for others vs. *eternal* gain for yourself.)
And if you blissfully dismiss the concerns of humanity in order to save your own behind, that strikes me as the virtual opposite of what Christianity declares itself to be.

For comparsion, I don't see how securing ones own food is super-egoistical, rather it's normal human nature. Same goes for will to get in the afterlife. It's egosentric, hardly saintly, but rather normal way of thinking imo.

Click to expand...

I do not know about you, but if I was stranded on an island with a limited food supply, I'd rather brave the prospect of minimal rations for everyone instead of fighting (and potentially killing or being killed) in order not to share.

And if I was stuck in a marooned spacecraft with another astronaut, and the computer would tell me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the oxygen supply will only sustain one of us until rescue arrives, I would not do anything to save my own behind, either: when all other options were exhausted, I'd draw lots or otherwise come to an understanding.

Tobias said:

Clearly some of you have no grasp whatsoever of what it means to suffer in hell for all eternity.

Click to expand...

Other than some mental gyrations, there is absoutly no way that anyone knows what it what it means to suffer in Hell, simply because no one has traveled there and than came back to give a report.

.

@Jane_The_Bane

In a "10 people in boat with food enough for 5" - situation I would like to think that I acted somewhat similarily as you describe. Probably taking into account the factor that if some individual happens to have some skill that is necessary for survival of everyone, that person shouldn't draw lots at all etc.

However I have never been in such situation so I don't have experiential knowledge of how I would actually react. That kind of situation would be very unpleasant to say the least. There is always the "if we survive by doing something really nasty, even if it's not selfish, can we truely live with it afterwards" - factor. Like, if I was in a boat with injured kid who can't survive on his/hers own and there is food for only one of us - situation. In that case if I chose myself to survive, it would do no good in long run because I would most likely commit suicide anyways afterwards so I would have to go with unrational "I try to save us both" - decision.

I meant securing ones own food in a situation when it's impact on limiting someone elses food is unclear. That is usually the case under normal circumstances and in such situation I do take care of myself first. But I do realize now that I was getting lost regarding the original question.

I think the original question would be easy call: I would choose to go to heaven. Because it's uneven situation and gaining endless good for someone is objectively better than gaining limited happiness for number of others. But it would be much harder if we had to choose in an even situation, like between going to heaven ourselves or letting someone else go. In fact, if given such choice, I would do my best to avoid the situation of choosing and try to find alternative options.

Given the sadistic nature of such choice, there is always this bonus factor of could it be even possible to consider authority that enjoys giving such choices to be reliable in any way. Outcome with it would likely in the end be something else than what was chosen anyways.

JackofSpades said:

However I have never been in such situation so I don't have experiential knowledge of how I would actually react.

Click to expand...

Now that I gave this some thinking, there is a moment that could remotedly qualify as such: In the army (Finland has obligatory military service so practically everyone goes there), when practising first time with granades as a rookie, instructing officer told us that if we drop it, he will throw us out of the bunker and then try to jump out himself. It was unlikely that he would have had time for latter part.

If I posessed outstanding heroic qualities I should assumably had offered to instead jump on the granade myself or suggested a deal that we both try to find our way out on our own. But what I practically did was that I just went with the flow without questioning his intention to potentially sacrifice himself.

So, based on that single experience I apparently took more of a "yes sir" - role than that of active self-sacrifice. Since the resulting view on my character based on this experience is somewhat unflattering, I put the blame on situation being somewhat biased. Even in theoretical scenario of me starting to show heroic qualities, I'm sure they would have been strongly discouraged (or potentially punished for questioning orders) given the place and situation we were in.