A Salvation Contention

[Strivax]

Before I start, I'd better just explain that I'm not trying to convert you into any belief you might find uncongenial, still less trying to persuade you to walk with me on my own particular path towards God. No, being a newbie on this forum, I'm trying to stimulate a little discussion, and see what you all make of the place I'm at right now. So, preamble over, here's a start.

Some people think salvation is a matter of good works. I don't particularly want to argue them down, because the world needs all the good works it can get. But, for me, the problem with this idea is the situation where one individual, no more virtuous than the next, can do a whole lot more good works than his neighbour, since he is richer. I reject the idea that you can buy your way into heaven.

Some people think that salvation is a matter of faith. They think that what you believe gets you to heaven. There are several problems with this idea, and I will list only three.

1) Faith is an accident of birth. Most people absorb the faith of their surrounding culture. A few hardy souls venture beyond this, but the chances of them doing so are vanishingly small. Most Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are that way because they were born into that society. Should heaven be a similar accident of birth?

2) Faith is not a matter of volition. We can only believe things we think to be true. And if we think a thing is true, we cannot help but believe it. We cannot change our beliefs simply because we want to, so, for example, the rationality of Pascal's wager is useless to us. Even if we think it to our advantage to believe there is a God, that cannot make us so to believe. If you doubt this, try becoming a scientologist for the next five minutes. And then try switching back again, just because you want to. And the point is, how can heavenly reward or hellish damnation justly depend on a thing we cannot help?

3) Faith is not a matter of virtue. Good people may believe all sorts of odd things, and bad people may adhere rigorously to truth. So, are we to believe good people go to hell, and bad people get to heaven, simply on the basis of their mindset?

So, these considerations lead me to think that the quality of our eventual afterlife must be a matter of our morality, rather than the extent of our good deeds or the truth value of our world-view. My contention is the simple, childish notion that there must be an afterlife, so that the injustice of the world can be rectified. And the simple, naive idea that good people will be rewarded, and bad people punished. For me, neither faith nor works will do, only moral stature.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Paradoxum]

I had similar problems with the idea of faith as acceptance of certain propositions. I came to believe that faith was the orientation of the heart towards the good, or God. So non-Christians might be saved by the attitude of their heart.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The issue with this, though, is what is moral and what is immoral also varies by culture. There are cultures in which men are expected to rape the women they wish to marry.

 

[Gothic Cross]

In order for something to be moral it has to absolute.
Is rape absolutely wrong?
Is murder absolutely wrong?
Without a standard(or rules) of morality every culture can make up what ever rules they want to.
All because a human says that something is Absolutely Right does not make it right.
If everything/everyone is right and no on is wrong for everything they do then there would be no such thing as sin.

 

[Gothic Cross]

(Faith is not by accident I think you might be referring to Religion)
Ephesians 2:8-9(NKJV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

(Good works mean nothing without Faith)
James 2:17(NKJV)
17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Proverbs 20:9 (NKJV)
9 Who can say, “I have made my heart clean,

Isaiah 64:6 (NKJV)
6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
I am pure from my sin”?

James 2:14 (NKJV)
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?


"We can only believe things we think to be true."
This statement defeats the whole meaning of the word TRUTH
Truth is not simply what is coherent or understandable.
Truth is not what makes people feel good.
Truth is not what the majority says is true.
Truth is not what is comprehensive.
Truth is not defined by what is intended.
Truth is not how we know; truth is what we know.
Truth is not simply what is believed. A lie believed is still a lie.
Truth is not what is publicly proved. A truth can be privately known (for example, the location of buried treasure).

"Good people may believe all sorts of odd things, and bad people may adhere rigorously to truth. So, are we to believe good people go to hell, and bad people get to heaven, simply on the basis of their mindset?"

(everyone is destined for Hell) Romans 3:23 (NKJV)
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Your mindset will not damn you to hell when you are already damned to go there.

John 3:3 (NKJV)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:18 (NKJV)
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Strivax]

I had similar problems with the idea of faith as acceptance of certain propositions. I came to believe that faith was the orientation of the heart towards the good, or God. So non-Christians might be saved by the attitude of their heart.

Yes. I think much the same. I think the right attitude goes a long way towards the development of moral merit, and that by practicing morality (even if we get it wrong, sometimes) we develop our moral character. And I would hazard that, if God is just, as I believe him to be, it is on the strength of our moral character that we will eventually be judged.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Gothic Cross]

if God is just, as I believe him to be, it is on the strength of our moral character that we will eventually be judged.

Can you back that from scripture?

 

[Strivax]

The issue with this, though, is what is moral and what is immoral also varies by culture. There are cultures in which men are expected to rape the women they wish to marry.

Yes, that does constitute an issue, but not, I think, an insurmountable problem.

There is morality as I see it. This is subjective morality, clearly.
There is morality as my culture sees it. Let's call that collective morality.
There is morality as God sees it. That is, obviously, objective morality.

So, I think all three are different, and may always be so. But one of our tasks in life is to close the gaps between subjective and collective moralities and objective morality. And the first step on the journey in this direction is to admit that neither we, nor our cultures, are infallible in moral matters, and there may be times when we need to alter our thinking in order to approach that perfect morality we may sometimes refer to as the Will of God.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Received]

Before I start, I'd better just explain that I'm not trying to convert you into any belief you might find uncongenial, still less trying to persuade you to walk with me on my own particular path towards God. No, being a newbie on this forum, I'm trying to stimulate a little discussion, and see what you all make of the place I'm at right now. So, preamble over, here's a start.

Some people think salvation is a matter of good works. I don't particularly want to argue them down, because the world needs all the good works it can get. But, for me, the problem with this idea is the situation where one individual, no more virtuous than the next, can do a whole lot more good works than his neighbour, since he is richer. I reject the idea that you can buy your way into heaven.

Some people think that salvation is a matter of faith. They think that what you believe gets you to heaven. There are several problems with this idea, and I will list only three.

1) Faith is an accident of birth. Most people absorb the faith of their surrounding culture. A few hardy souls venture beyond this, but the chances of them doing so are vanishingly small. Most Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are that way because they were born into that society. Should heaven be a similar accident of birth?

2) Faith is not a matter of volition. We can only believe things we think to be true. And if we think a thing is true, we cannot help but believe it. We cannot change our beliefs simply because we want to, so, for example, the rationality of Pascal's wager is useless to us. Even if we think it to our advantage to believe there is a God, that cannot make us so to believe. If you doubt this, try becoming a scientologist for the next five minutes. And then try switching back again, just because you want to. And the point is, how can heavenly reward or hellish damnation justly depend on a thing we cannot help?

3) Faith is not a matter of virtue. Good people may believe all sorts of odd things, and bad people may adhere rigorously to truth. So, are we to believe good people go to hell, and bad people get to heaven, simply on the basis of their mindset?

So, these considerations lead me to think that the quality of our eventual afterlife must be a matter of our morality, rather than the extent of our good deeds or the truth value of our world-view. My contention is the simple, childish faith that there must be an afterlife, so that the injustice of the world can be rectified. And the simple, naive idea that good people will be rewarded, and bad people punished. For me, neither faith nor works will do, only moral stature.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Interesting.

Thing with morality is that it doesn't really particularize your own life. It might help you become a good, virtuous, well-rounded person, but only assuming there are social duties of a moral nature that are required in certain situations. What do we do when we're all alone? How is God relevant here when it comes to our unique calling and direction for our lives? If he isn't relevant here, I see faith as little value. Faith isn't just following specific rules (which basically makes faith a matter of ethics), but of living life according to specific, individualized calling -- your calling, "the truth for which I can live and die," as Kierkegaard said.

 

[Gothic Cross]

There is morality as I see it. This is subjective morality, clearly.
There is morality as my culture sees it. Let's call that collective morality.
There is morality as God sees it. That is, obviously, objective morality.

Morality
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

There is only Right and Wrong
God's morality would be Right.
Anything that contradicts his morality would be wrong.
If you say murder is ok because you don't want to value human life then you are saying that God's morality is wrong.

 

[Strivax]

Interesting.

Thing with morality is that it doesn't really particularize your own life. It might help you become a good, virtuous, well-rounded person, but only assuming there are social duties of a moral nature that are required in certain situations. What do we do when we're all alone? How is God relevant here when it comes to our unique calling and direction for our lives? If he isn't relevant here, I see faith as little value. Faith isn't just following specific rules (which basically makes faith a matter of ethics), but of living life according to specific, individualized calling -- your calling, "the truth for which I can live and die," as Kierkegaard said.

Yes, I think that is a helpful way to think about faith. It is certainly a more profound view than the superficial way in which I meant faith; which I saw simply to be a matter of a system of beliefs. Nevertheless, I think all our thoughts, words and deeds have a moral component, because, sooner or later, they affect others. We owe it to each other, as well as to ourselves and to God, to become 'good, virtuous and well-rounded' people, even when we are all alone.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Strivax]

Morality
the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

There is only Right and Wrong
God's morality would be Right.
Anything that contradicts his morality would be wrong.
If you say murder is ok because you don't want to value human life then you are saying that God's morality is wrong.

Yes, I should have made it clearer that by objective morality I meant not only a perfectly correct morality but also the standard by which all other moralities are to be judged. The only trouble with this idea is that we don't know, in every circumstance, what constitutes the objectively correct, Godly, moral response. We just do not know the entirety of God's Will, and that goes even if (perhaps particularly if) we think we do. So, we have work to do, and the philosophical field of ethics is not an entirely useless pursuit!

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yes. I think much the same. I think the right attitude goes a long way towards the development of moral merit, and that by practicing morality (even if we get it wrong, sometimes) we develop our moral character. And I would hazard that, if God is just, as I believe him to be, it is on the strength of our moral character that we will eventually be judged.

Best wishes, Strivax

That seems fair.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, that does constitute an issue, but not, I think, an insurmountable problem.

There is morality as I see it. This is subjective morality, clearly.
There is morality as my culture sees it. Let's call that collective morality.
There is morality as God sees it. That is, obviously, objective morality.

So, I think all three are different, and may always be so. But one of our tasks in life is to close the gaps between subjective and collective moralities and objective morality. And the first step on the journey in this direction is to admit that neither we, nor our cultures, are infallible in moral matters, and there may be times when we need to alter our thinking in order to approach that perfect morality we may sometimes refer to as the Will of God.

Best wishes, Strivax.

Issue: even if god came down to people every day, and recited what it views as moral and immoral, people would still interpret the words differently, meaning that even if there was some objective for, of morality out there, it would never be applied as such.

 

[Strivax]

Issue: even if god came down to people every day, and recited what it views as moral and immoral, people would still interpret the words differently, meaning that even if there was some objective for, of morality out there, it would never be applied as such.

Yes, I think that all follows quite accurately. So, there is an objective standard by which we are judged, but we do not know what it is, and even if we developed our subjective and collective moralities to the degree that they became completely consistent with objective morality, we would not know that we had done so. We could call this 'the principle of moral humility' and to realise the truth of it is, I believe, to make a first tentative step towards ethical wisdom.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[KCfromNC]

In order for something to be moral it has to absolute.
Is rape absolutely wrong?
Is murder absolutely wrong?
Without a standard(or rules) of morality every culture can make up what ever rules they want to.
All because a human says that something is Absolutely Right does not make it right.
If everything/everyone is right and no on is wrong for everything they do then there would be no such thing as sin.

Sounds like a jumbled argument from consequence to me. The fact that people die falling from high places doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Likewise, the fact that non-objective morality makes dealing with others messy doesn't mean that there must be an objective absolute morality.

 

[Strivax]

Sounds like a jumbled argument from consequence to me. The fact that people die falling from high places doesn't mean gravity is wrong. Likewise, the fact that non-objective morality makes dealing with others messy doesn't mean that there must be an objective absolute morality.

Whilst sympathetic to these sentiments, I think it is possible to make an argument for an objective, absolute morality.

Let's assume that I have a moral system of sorts, and you do, as well. Let's also assume these subjective moralities differ, in substance or in detail. Then one of these systems must be better than the other. We might argue which is which, but we would probably agree that there are qualitative differences between them. Perhaps one system is more coherent, consistent or comprehensive than the other. So, if we hold that systems of moralities vary in quality, are we not implying that there must be some, ideal, system of morality that is the best of all?

I think we would be entitled to call such a moral system 'objective' morality.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Once chosen and granted God's saving grace we must become spiritually productive. God's calling sets in motion a way of life within us, sometimes referred to as 'works'. The works don't save us, but they confirm and identify us as Christians; to the world, to ourselves, and to God. And, it is through material works that we grow spiritually. In the end our works may fade away but what we have gained spiritually remains.

 

[Strivax]

Once chosen and granted God's saving grace we must become spiritually productive. God's calling sets in motion a way of life within us, sometimes referred to as 'works'. The works don't save us, but they confirm and identify us as Christians; to the world, to ourselves, and to God. And, it is through material works that we grow spiritually. In the end our works may fade away but what we have gained spiritually remains.

Yes, I would agree with this, as far as it goes. I would suggest though, that 'works' are possible without a Christian conception of God, or being 'born again', and will be rewarded appropriately because the consequent spiritual stature gained is independent of the faith we espouse. In other words, you could be a Buddhist, and do works, and gain moral strength of character thereby, and through that character, be kindly judged.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Received]

Yes, I think that is a helpful way to think about faith. It is certainly a more profound view than the superficial way in which I meant faith; which I saw simply to be a matter of a system of beliefs. Nevertheless, I think all our thoughts, words and deeds have a moral component, because, sooner or later, they affect others. We owe it to each other, as well as to ourselves and to God, to become 'good, virtuous and well-rounded' people, even when we are all alone.

Best wishes, Strivax.

I wonder if it's true to say that if everything becomes moral, nothing does.