Is it ethical to accept Salvation?

[PeterMaclellan]

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?

 

[Waiting for the Verdict]

No, it's not ethical. That's why I went from fundamentalism to atheism.

 

[TheManeki]

I always thought that if accepting Jesus (reciting the magic words known as "The Sinner's Prayer") was the only way to escape eternal torment, then our omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving God did a horrible job of getting the word out.

Kinda makes all the other atrocities throughout history pale by comparison.

 

[sbvera13]

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.

 

[jennidawn]

This is my initial response. I feel that you have posed a very interesting and thought provoking issue and I'm going to give it the due respect of mulling it over...however, I did want to say that Christians are given the duty the mission if you will to "witness" or spread the word as read on one post. Also, and I will need to look this up but there is something special about those who have never heard as opposed to those who reject. I must ponder this more.

 

[ebia]

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 3: Christian doctine is not "Hell is a punishment for not saying the magic words".

If you set up a paraody of Christian doctrine, don't be suprised if looks rather mickey-mouse.

The whole creation collectively, and every person individually, is corrupted, broken, and in need of healing. Remaining sick isn't an unfair punishment for not trusting your doctor and taking the medicine - it's the natural consequence.

A man and his friend were both very sick. Their doctor prescribed them both some medication. One took it and got better; the other, despite his friends encouragement to do likewise, refused and died. Did the one who got better act unethically? Should the doctor lose his licence because he didn't save both of them?

 

[HazyRigby]

A man and his friend were both very sick. Their doctor prescribed them both some medication. One took it and got better; the other, despite his friends encouragement to do likewise, refused and died. Did the one who got better act unethically?

If, in order for him to get better, someone else had to suffer through torture, then yes, he did act unethically.

 

[TheManeki]

A man and his friend were both very sick. Their doctor prescribed them both some medication. One took it and got better; the other, despite his friends encouragement to do likewise, refused and died. Did the one who got better act unethically? Should the doctor lose his licence because he didn't save both of them?

Let's expand on that analogy a couple of steps further:

What if one man had heard of the medicine and the other hadn't, because the doctor didn't do a good job letting people know it existed?

What if the doctor knew the medicine worked 1000000x better than all the alternatives, but did a poor job of getting the results of his study out -- the way he reported his results made it unclear if the medicine was better, or instead no more effective than the other alternative medicines?

 

[Emmy]

Dear PeterMaclellan. I cannot understand why it is Not ethical to accept Salvation, and why ( according to your statement) why there are thousands who suffer greatly, rather than accepting Jesus Christ as the Saviour of Mankind. Jesus was the only man who was without sin or wrongdoing, who could pay the price, which God`s Holy Law demanded, from us. We had moved too far away from God, we had sunk too deeply in sin and transgressions. Jesus died that we might live, Jesus reconciled us to God, our Heavenly Father. All we have to do now, is REPENT of our old way of life, and learn to love God again, and treat each other, as we would like others to treat us. It is hard, but with the help and guidance of Jesus, it can be done. It will take years to learn, but we know that we can ask forgiveness every time we are weak and wrong. God knows our hearts, He will know whether we are truly trying to become as God wants us to be: Loving and caring, forgiving and ready to help all around us. and if we try, we will find that God`s Way will become easier and easier, and our lives will be filled with Love, Joy, and Peace. To resist the Lord`s Salvation is not only shortsighted, it is downright cruel. Jesus died a painful Death to give us the opportunity to return to our original home, Eternity with God and with our Christian brothers and sisters. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[selfinflikted]

Or 3: Christian doctine is not "Hell is a punishment for not saying the magic words".

If you set up a paraody of Christian doctrine, don't be suprised if looks rather mickey-mouse.

The whole creation collectively, and every person individually, is corrupted, broken, and in need of healing. Remaining sick isn't an unfair punishment for not trusting your doctor and taking the medicine - it's the natural consequence.

A man and his friend were both very sick. Their doctor prescribed them both some medication. One took it and got better; the other, despite his friends encouragement to do likewise, refused and died. Did the one who got better act unethically? Should the doctor lose his licence because he didn't save both of them?

For this analogy to work, the medicine in question would have to be invisible. Not only would it have to be invisible, but there would be no proof that the medicine even existed. Further, there would be no proof that the invisible medicine even works. Now, if my doctor handed me a pill bottle with invisible medicine and told me that it would make me better, but had no evidence that it would - I'd laugh my way straight out of that quack's office and go looking for a real doctor.

 

[TheManeki]

Let's not forget that medicines have side-effects, too!

 

[Phred]

It doesn't strike you as odd that the first of the Ten Commandments whether you read in Exodus or Deuteronomy is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Why would a deity that exists alone as the one and only god have to give this command? Does this mean there are other gods which means there could be other paths to "salvation"? And why the need for "salvation" at all? Doesn't it seem contrived that we are under this umbrella of "sin" our entire lives through the deeds of people who did things for which we have no possible responsibility? People who didn't exist to begin with?

There is no ethical dilemma in accepting "salvation". You can worry about that after you're dead. A dilemma I fear no one is likely to face. The ethical dilemma we are likely to face is that most of the population of the world feels they are superior to others because of the belief they hold. One they've most likely been born into by pure luck.

 

[theVirginian]

Would not the ultimate gesture of Christ-like behavior to refuse salvation...

Boycotting God won't get him to change his mind, but if it makes you feel better for taking the "moral high ground", go ahead.

 

[Phred]

Boycotting God won't get him to change his mind, but if it makes you feel better for taking the "moral high ground", go ahead.

If God exists anything you say or do won't matter. If God doesn't exist anything you say or do won't matter. So what's the point of what you just wrote?

 

[Ave Maria]

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

 

[Phred]

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

Is there anything unethical about accepting Allah as your Lord?

 

[selfinflikted]

Is there anything unethical about accepting Allah as your Lord?

Are you kidding? Don't you know there is only One True God (tm)?

 

[ebia]

Let's expand on that analogy a couple of steps further:

What if one man had heard of the medicine and the other hadn't, because the doctor didn't do a good job letting people know it existed?

What if the doctor knew the medicine worked 1000000x better than all the alternatives, but did a poor job of getting the results of his study out -- the way he reported his results made it unclear if the medicine was better, or instead no more effective than the other alternative medicines?

The story is mean to illustrate one particular point - it's not meant to be a complete explanation of every aspect of salvation. Hopefully it has done it's job of pointing out that "hell" is not a punishment for not accepting Jesus. Addressing your further questions might require a different story.

 

[ebia]

It doesn't strike you as odd that the first of the Ten Commandments whether you read in Exodus or Deuteronomy is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me"? Why would a deity that exists alone as the one and only god have to give this command?

Because lots of people put things in place of the one true God. Whether that's little wooden statues, or other concepts of deity, or something they don't even think of in terms of the divine such as money, status....

Does this mean there are other gods which means there could be other paths to "salvation"? And why the need for "salvation" at all? Doesn't it seem contrived that we are under this umbrella of "sin" our entire lives through the deeds of people who did things for which we have no possible responsibility? People who didn't exist to begin with?

It's undoubtably true that the sins of the past affect each of us in a myriad of ways to make us less than we ought to be. Whether you can 'historically' trace that back to a single 'factual' event is immaterial - the story is true either way.

There is no ethical dilemma in accepting "salvation". You can worry about that after you're dead. A dilemma I fear no one is likely to face. The ethical dilemma we are likely to face is that most of the population of the world feels they are superior to others because of the belief they hold.

If we do, we shouldn't.

 

[ebia]

For this analogy to work, the medicine in question would have to be invisible. Not only would it have to be invisible, but there would be no proof that the medicine even existed. Further, there would be no proof that the invisible medicine even works. Now, if my doctor handed me a pill bottle with invisible medicine and told me that it would make me better, but had no evidence that it would - I'd laugh my way straight out of that quack's office and go looking for a real doctor.

As I said in another post - the story address one particular point. Attacking it because it doesn't address every possible question is unreasonable.