Is it ethical to accept Salvation?

[DarkGreenMind]

If the Christians are right and the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, then presumably there are billions of souls currently roasting eternally in hell. The crime for which they earned such a harsh sentence is failing to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. If that is the case, how could any good Christian, seeking to emulate Jesus Christ accept the offer of eternal bliss while so many of their fellow souls suffer eternally? Would not the ultimate gesture of Christ-like behavior to refuse salvation or offer to take another place in hell? How can any decent Christian, nay, any decent human being enjoy the afterlife with the knowledge that so many of his or her species suffer immeasurably?

This is an interesting question, indeed.

I don't think that Christianity is about "avoiding eternal damnation". I don't believe in "everlasting hell".

The English word "hell" is misleading, since it is used to translate 3 different Greek terms in the New Testament. The word "everlasting" (or "eternal"), found in most translations, is a mistranslation, so there is no such thing as "eternal hell".

This "accept Jesus or go to eternal hell" approach is ridiculous and harmful for both Christianity and non-Christians. Those whose motivation to accept Christianity is just "to avoid eternal hell" or to "save their own soul" are not true Christians. It is really selfish and fleshly to anticipate such an eternity, in which the saints enjoy blessed life and the wicked suffer forever. What Christ wants is the very opposite: to be ready to give your soul for others and to be ready to lose your own soul because of Him.

Greater love than this has no one, that anyone should lay down his soul* for his friends. (John 15:13, LITV)
For whosoever may be wanting to save his soul* shall be destroying it. Yet whoever should be destroying his soul* on My account shall be finding it. (Matthew 16:25, The Concordant Literal New Testament)

* Greek psyche, usually translated "life" in these verses.

 

[HazyRigby]

There is nothing unethical about accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

Sure there is.

If someone told you could avoid going to jail for murder simply by allowing an innocent man to stand trial, would you do it?

By accepting the sacrifice of Jesus, you're accepting the moral idea that an innocent paying the price for the guilty is OK. It's not. It's never OK.

If your God has condemned me—by rules he put in place from the beginning of time and knew in advance would cause chaos—then I say I should be forced to pay for my own crimes. If God were a just god, he would require no blood sacrifice. As it is, though, I cannot accept the life of an innocent man as payment for anything I've done.

It's unethical to do so.

 

[ebia]

Sure there is.

If someone told you could avoid going to jail for murder simply by allowing an innocent man to stand trial, would you do it?

By accepting the sacrifice of Jesus, you're accepting the moral idea that an innocent paying the price for the guilty is OK. It's not. It's never OK.

If your God has condemned me—by rules he put in place from the beginning of time and knew in advance would cause chaos—then I say I should be forced to pay for my own crimes. If God were a just god, he would require no blood sacrifice. As it is, though, I cannot accept the life of an innocent man as payment for anything I've done.

It's unethical to do so.

The snag is, that addresses a rather simplistic understanding of Substitionary Atonement, which is (itself) only one way of trying to understand how the cross works.

If your God has condemned me—by rules he put in place from the beginning of time and knew in advance would cause chaos—

As I and others have tried to point out above - that's not remotely what it's about. It's not about punishment for breaking some arbitrary rules, it's about God healing the world, but being unwilling to heal those who refuse to be healed.

then I say I should be forced to pay for my own crimes. If God were a just god, he would require no blood sacrifice.

You mean like God, when he said (through the prophet Hosea) "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

 

[HazyRigby]

The snag is, that addresses a rather simplistic understanding of Substitionary Atonement, which is (itself) only one way of trying to understand how the cross works.

The enlighten me as to a better way of looking at it.

Are you telling me that an omnipotent God couldn't come up with a better way to do it?

As I and others have tried to point out above - that's not remotely what it's about. It's not about punishment for breaking some arbitrary rules, it's about God healing the world, but being unwilling to heal those who refuse to be healed.

What about those of us who see no evidence that this God exists? I fully accept that I have done bad things—but I don't believe that someone should have to suffer because I did bad things. That's just wrong.

You mean like God, when he said (through the prophet Hosea) "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."

Then he could have done that. What your God desires, he gets. Jesus didn't have to die.

 

[ebia]

The enlighten me as to a better way of looking at it.

You could do worse than look up Christus Victor model, but before you do, it needs to be said that these are just ways of trying to get to grips with how it works. None of us has a perfect model for understanding it, because it is way beyond our ability to understand.

Are you telling me that an omnipotent God couldn't come up with a better way to do it?

There's nothing wrong with the way - only with our ability to understand some of the detail. This is God saying "I'm going to do this for you, because you cannot do it for yourselves; I'm going to bring the pain and brokenness of the world to focus on one point in time and space, and take that pain on myself, so that the whole of creation can be healed".

Omnipotence is not a biblical, nor (IMO) a helpful concept.

What about those of us who see no evidence that this God exists?

It's a bit hard to have a conversation about what God did if he doesn't exist. We can't discuss the cross without assuming that God exists because it isn't going to make a blind bit of sense if he doesn't.

I fully accept that I have done bad things—but I don't believe that someone should have to suffer because I did bad things. That's just wrong.

People do suffer as a consquence of the bad things that we do. This is God voluntarily taking on that suffering so that it can stop. The alternative is that the suffering goes on for ever and creation can never get back on course.

Then he could have done that. What your God desires, he gets. Jesus didn't have to die.

He did - that's the only way of dealing with what's broken in creation and getting it back on course.

 

[HazyRigby]

You could do worse than look up Christus Victor model, but before you do, it needs to be said that these are just ways of trying to get to grips with how it works. None of us has a perfect model for understanding it, because it is way beyond our ability to understand.

So what you're saying is that it's nonsensical.

There's nothing wrong with the way - only with our ability to understand some of the detail.

Nothing wrong with it? Everything's wrong with the innocent sacrificed for the guilty. It's an iron-age concept, one I think we've moved beyond.

He did - that's the only way of dealing with what's broken in creation and getting it back on course.

The ONLY way? You're telling me that God could not possibly come up with a better way of dealing with sin than requiring his son to die on a cross?

I'm mortal, and I can think of about a thousand ways.

 

[Forest]

Nothing wrong with it? Everything's wrong with the innocent sacrificed for the guilty. It's an iron-age concept, one I think we've moved beyond.

If God is the one wronged by sin, and if Jesus is God, then what is wrong with the one who the crime is comitted against choosing the restitution?

 

[Forest]

I've always felt that any god that would condone such torture for such a superficial crime is inherently evil and not worthy of worship. This leaves me two options:
1: Christian doctrine is right, and god is evil and I will not worship him.
2: Christian doctrine is wrong, god is good, and will not condemn anyone for such a superficial crime.

Either way, actually being a christian goes against my moral code. The crimes advocated by their god are simply too extreme for me to support in any fashion.

Or, maybe what you think is Christian doctrine is not Christian doctrine.

 

[rhyddid_rose]

See, I dont buy Christianity or any monotheistic religion. I dont accept the idea of someone dying for my 'sins'. How could Jesus die for something which didn't exist at the time? Jesus was murdered; he did nothing wrong. It doesn't make sense and it is injustice.

I dont believe in original sin, I believe in free will and choice. People choose good or evil. Creation is not evil; I see Nature as good.

I dont the way some Christians use fear tactics to get people to join. It comes across like a protection racket. Accept Jesus or go to hell. I do not fear God and I dont wish a relationship with God based on fear. I want one based on honour, respect and truth.

I dont believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. God speaks to me through Nature, observation and experience. The bible is foreign and is not about my ancestors. I dont really relate to it.

So the answer to your question is it would be unethical for me to accept something I am morally and ethically against.

 

[ebia]

So what you're saying is that it's nonsensical.

No, I'm saying that (like any other theory) it's an imperfect attempt to explain something we don't fully understand.

Nothing wrong with it? Everything's wrong with the innocent sacrificed for the guilty. It's an iron-age concept, one I think we've moved beyond.

When what you object to is a gross oversimplification then it's not surprising that you reject it.
For instance, you are ignoring the fact that this is a self-sacrifice. Only the most selfish, individualisting and arrogant society could think that self-sacrifice is something we should aspire to move beyond.

The ONLY way? You're telling me that God could not possibly come up with a better way of dealing with sin than requiring his son to die on a cross?

I'm mortal, and I can think of about a thousand ways.

The snag is, they wouldn't work. The cross did.

 

[HazyRigby]

If God is the one wronged by sin, and if Jesus is God, then what is wrong with the one who the crime is comitted against choosing the restitution?

How on earth can an all-powerful being be "wronged" by a human committing a sin?

That's akin to me being hurt by a sin a cricket commits.

 

[HazyRigby]

No, I'm saying that (like any other theory) it's an imperfect attempt to explain something we don't fully understand.

Why didn't God make this easier for us to understand, then? If it's such an important, soul-saving doctrine, you'd think he would have made it so logical that no one could deny it. Why the mystery? Why the illogicality?

For instance, you are ignoring the fact that this is a self-sacrifice. Only the most selfish, individualisting and arrogant society could think that self-sacrifice is something we should aspire to move beyond.

I don't think we should move beyond people willing to be self-sacrificing. I think we should move beyond the need.

Besides, it doesn't matter if Jesus was willing. If your Mom agreed to go to jail so you wouldn't have to, that wouldn't make it less evil and selfish to accept, would it?

The snag is, they wouldn't work. The cross did.

You're telling me this all-powerful God can't come up with a better way and make it work?

 

[rhyddid_rose]

How on earth can an all-powerful being be "wronged" by a human committing a sin?

That's akin to me being hurt by a sin a cricket commits.

Right on! I've said somewhat the same thing. How can my puny actions affect the Creator of the Universe?

 

[ebia]

Why didn't God make this easier for us to understand, then?

The purpose of salvation isn't to be understood, it's purpose is to save. You don't need to understand how it works for that, any more than you need to understand how gravity works to fall over. The solution is bound to be complex and hard to understand because it the problem is complex and hard to understand, the solution is (and needs to be) counter-cultural and counter-intuitive, and the solution provider is so far beyond our understanding.

If it's such an important, soul-saving doctrine, you'd think he would have made it so logical that no one could deny it. Why the mystery? Why the illogicality?

The doctrine doesn't save anybody.



I don't think we should move beyond people willing to be self-sacrificing. I think we should move beyond the need.

Besides, it doesn't matter if Jesus was willing. If your Mom agreed to go to jail so you wouldn't have to, that wouldn't make it less evil and selfish to accept, would it?

You're telling me this all-powerful God can't come up with a better way and make it work?

There's nothing wrong with this way, only with your understanding of it. You haven't even demonstrated that you understand what the objective is, let alone the mechanism. This conversation is like trying to talk about gravity with someone who doesn't understand how things fall, and demands that gravity doesn't exist because the theory should be simple enough to be obvious if it is true.

 

[ebia]

How on earth can an all-powerful being be "wronged" by a human committing a sin?

That's akin to me being hurt by a sin a cricket commits.

Because he's the creator that cares about his creation and intends to put it right. How could a loving creator not be wronged by something that causes (amongst may other things) most of the world's population to live in poverty, many starving and lacking safe drinking water, while the rich minority in the west live in afluence? How could he not be wronged by those made in his image being treated like dirt because of their gender, skin colour, age or disability? How could he not be wronged by people killing each other and using his name to try and justify it?