The Ultimate Sacrifice

Ana the Ist said:

Indeed.

Click to expand...

I actually think the question is pretty important (the one you already answered) ... as it shows something unique about love, specifically. It's a hypothetical that isn't really all that hypothetical when you consider it in different contexts.

In the context of "Christianity", I see it intimately tied to some pretty basic theology, so I'd hope that more who consider themselves Christians would chime in. This thread may end up buried soon however, I might open up a thread with the question on it's own.

Resha Caner said:

Sigh. OK. Don't answer my questions then. And from here forward I won't ask you any more questions. We'll just wind this down.



No. Our history simply illustrates quite clearly that I shouldn't assume we mean the same thing by a word. The Bible often refers to the law, but that doesn't necessarily mean the modern usage of the word.



You constantly speak as if you're revealing new things to me. Whereas, my reaction to comments like this is, "Finally! Why was it such a chore to get here?" What you just said above is what we teach our 5th graders at church.

The difference, however, is where we go from here. You and I go different directions. You read Matt 5:48 (You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.) and respond, "Pfft! What a stupid book. That's impossible so move on."

I read it and respond, "But God, I can't do that. I need you to help me."

Click to expand...

I went back about three pages to look for the "questions" you seem to think are unanswered. I'm still not sure what they are. There's really no reason to get upset about it though...you've ducked and dodged question after question of mine and I've been rather patient about it. For example, in the last post of mine you responded to there were two questions (which I gave the rather obvious answers to)...you removed them from your response. Was it because you agree? Or was it because they ruin your notion of moral absolutes?

I think an acceptable definition for "law" would be "a rule for the governing of a society created to allow the functioning of that society as desired." I don't know why you need to keep asking why I wanted to omit the discussion of law from a discussion of morality. I've said it before, I'll say it again, they aren't the same. You've admitted as much, so whether or not you agree with my particular definition of law doesn't matter in the least. We both recognize morals and laws are different...and we are discussing morality. So, if the two questions you were hoping to get answers for were "What is a law?" and "Why would you not want to discuss law in a discussion of morality?"...are you satisfied now?

If I note the progress of your understanding of morality, I only do so because you didn't show any understanding before. You seem to realize that your book doesn't cover all possible moral choices. You seem to realize that people clearly have to make moral choices that they won't have any guidelines from your god for. You clearly seem to understand the problem with this ...it means that they won't be able to meet whatever moral standards your god has.

About now you're probably thinking "Aha! That's why we need Christ to redeem us!"...but I'm guessing you still don't see the many many problems with that. If all that matters is that we accept Christ (you know, because we can't be expected to behave morally) then why create any moral laws at all? We can't be expected to behave morally (see above if you've already forgotten why) and all that matters is that we accept Christ...so why create any moral laws? Here's another problem...why would your god create a situation in which no one could possibly act according to his moral code....and then punish them for it? It would seem to me, that if we we're to try and come up with the "worst moral character in history" no one anywhere could be worse than your god. He has set you, me, everyone up to fail...placed us all in a situation in which we cannot possibly succeed...and then punishes us if we don't worship him. As a moral actor, he's absolutely vile....there has never been a person who hasn't been more "morally good" than your god.

These are just a couple problems with your moral absolutes.

PsychoSarah said:

Would you sacrifice your own salvation to save two people whom you don't know? Note, no matter what, if you make this sacrifice, you would end up suffering in hell, your sacrifice will not personally give you anything good in return.

Click to expand...

No.

That sounds...I don't know, really cold. Still, even though I don't actually believe that there is a Hell, if there were, it would be the most terrifying and awful possibility imaginable.

Everyone has an aversion to the idea of pain. The idea of hopeless, unending, and extreme pain is just not something that I think anyone would be willing to endure for anyone else. After the first few hundred million years, you probably wouldn't even remember the original sacrifice. I would feel bad about letting someone go there. I wouldn't feel good about freeing them, though, if I couldn't think about anything other than being on fire.

PsychoSarah said:

Would you sacrifice your own salvation to save two people whom you don't know? Note, no matter what, if you make this sacrifice, you would end up suffering in hell, your sacrifice will not personally give you anything good in return.

Click to expand...

The problem is the "if" in your question presumes such a hypothetical is possible.

It isn't. Ergo, the exercise is pointless.

PsychoSarah said:

Truly, I am glad for the honesty people have presented on here. Frankly, I thought there would be at least one person who would try to make themselves look superior to everyone by claiming they would make that sacrifice, but no one did. Also, Homestuck is awesome. I will never look at a bucket the same way again.

Click to expand...

Why would someone who may have tried to do that be necessarily "trying to look superior" ?

PsychoSarah said:

Because that ultimate sacrifice would require one to be more selfless than Jesus is in the bible.

Click to expand...

Oh I thought you meant "superior" as compared to others on the forum/in the thread/etc.

What if someone tried to do the same thing that Jesus is interpreted as doing in the Bible ? (die and/or suffer for someone, go to "hell" temporarily, etc)

PsychoSarah said:

That isn't the premise, it is going to hell and taking their place forever.

Click to expand...

I know it wasn't the exact premise of the OP, I was asking because it's related in context.

PsychoSarah said:

I suppose that depends, does the individual know it was only going to be temporary?

Click to expand...

Let's say the individual believes it will only be temporary, or perhaps has faith that is the case ... but won't know of course until they walk it out and see for themselves if their choice will result in their demise, or a positive outcome. In other words, it's a risk.

I voted Yes, and seem to be the only one that did. If I sacrifice my "salvation" for the betterment of two individuals, who's to say God would not allow me into Heaven? I just gave up the one thing that guarantees me into Paradise, so that two more would be granted that same entrance. However, if he damned me to hell for sharing this gift, what kind of God would do that?

PsychoSarah said:

Would you sacrifice your own salvation to save two people whom you don't know? Note, no matter what, if you make this sacrifice, you would end up suffering in hell, your sacrifice will not personally give you anything good in return.

Click to expand...

No, for several reasons.

The first is that salvation is not mine to give.

The second is that, if those two hypothetical people are willing to repent and receive Christ, then they would have salvation. If they're not, they how could they be saved?

The third is that it assumes that my judgment is better and holier than God's judgment and righteousness.

PsychoSarah said:

If they believe it shall be temporary, then it isn't too much of a sacrifice. Probably still more of one than that of Jesus (hell has got to be worse than any pain on earth). Well, if Jesus was also aware that he was going to paradise, anyways.

Click to expand...

I would still see it as a sacrifice ...

Arguably, Jesus would have *known* that going to hell was temporary. However, it's interesting that the account says that before dying, He cried out: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me ?". IOW, I wonder if the context of that statement shows that the experience was "legit", in that the sacrifice had risk to it. If God had forsaken Him, would He absolutely be raised from the dead and not suffer in hell, etc ? It's as though the context of that statement reveals the faith of Jesus, not the presumed absolute "ease" in which He would have assumed, "Meh, it's only temporary, and I know that." I mean, if God has forsaken something, what does that say about that something ? So I find that comment interesting, as it reveals perhaps the nature of the sacrifice being more dynamic than many people assume.

But aside from that ... back to "non Jesus" examples: let's say you are willing to go to jail for someone for 10 years, knowing that you are supposed to be released in 10 years. Or even 3 years. It's still a sacrifice, imo. There is a risk. Or let's say you place yourself in a position to endure torture for someone or something. "Let the hostage go, take me instead," etc. Or consider POW's who are later released. Even though their experience ended up being temporary, it was still a sacrifice imo.

muslimsoldier4life said:

I voted Yes, and seem to be the only one that did. If I sacrifice my "salvation" for the betterment of two individuals, who's to say God would not allow me into Heaven

Click to expand...

God says so. Works cannot save you.

Ana the Ist said:

It's a hypothetical...and for some reason, believers seem to not want to answer any hypotheticals that aren't consistent with their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Actually, I did answer the hypothetical and even explained the logic behind my answer. So, when you claim I didn't answer, that's not exactly honest.

TillICollapse said:

He's not doing it to try and "get in" and be saved. He's doing it to help others. He's losing his life for the sake of others.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's still a work and still cannot save.

TillICollapse said:

I've thought about this. I'm not sure the answer is black and white.

Speaking in generalities, I think the hard core answer would be, that believers aren't interested in truth

Click to expand...

Interesting. Does this mean that you acknowledge that there is, in fact, an objective truth?

Any situation, be it real or hypothetical, that doesn't reinforce or support their beliefs, is discarded or explained away. Thus the belief is protected over exploration of the truth.

Click to expand...

Actually, I not only answered the question, but explained the reasoning behind my answer. So your claim that I didn't answer the question is...let's just say, less than honest.

It's almost as though attempting to even prove ones belief is considered dangerous and wrong. It's almost as though it's more noble and "good" to keep ones belief in the realm of "untested".

Click to expand...

Er, you do realize that there's an entire branch of Christian theology called "apologetics" that's dedicated to answering the very questions you claim Christians refuse to answer, right?

So right there, in the beginning of the Book ... there is a fear: "If I do not heed what God said in a similar way, then I will fall and suffer consequences !"

Click to expand...

Which is not consistent with Christian teaching...

I think that fear gets translated into this version: "I am not allowed to even question what God has said, or else. The best thing I can do, is accept it, even if I don't understand it, and do my best to obey it ... that will keep me safe. That will be my belief."

Click to expand...

Which is not consistent with Christian teaching...

Of course, I'm speaking in generalities as I said

Click to expand...

Aren't all negative stereotypes generalities?

that even questioning what is real or true or what is meant by such and such as it pertains to faith, is playing with sin.

Click to expand...

Verse?

The irony further being, of course, that people who believe in such a way often display behavior contrary to their said belief (i.e. hypocrisy).

Click to expand...

Yes, Christians are sinners. You appear to be the only person who did not know that.

muslimsoldier4life said:

I voted Yes, and seem to be the only one that did. If I sacrifice my "salvation" for the betterment of two individuals, who's to say God would not allow me into Heaven? I just gave up the one thing that guarantees me into Paradise, so that two more would be granted that same entrance. However, if he damned me to hell for sharing this gift, what kind of God would do that?

Click to expand...

Basically, youre just changing the terms of the challenge.

South Bound said:

God says so. Works cannot save you.

Click to expand...

He's not doing it to try and "get in" and be saved. He's doing it to help others. He's losing his life for the sake of others.

TillICollapse said:

He's not doing it to try and "get in" and be saved. He's doing it to help others. He's losing his life for the sake of others.

Click to expand...

It's a hypothetical...and for some reason, believers seem to not want to answer any hypotheticals that aren't consistent with their beliefs. I'm not sure why that is, it's certainly not hard for me to imagine scenarios that I don't believe at all. Perhaps it's because such hypotheticals require a believer to consider a situation that their dogma doesn't allow. I suppose if I had people telling me what I had to believe for my whole life, I'd also be reluctant to even consider anything inconsistent with those beliefs.