The Ultimate Sacrifice

[TillICollapse]

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.

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, they are interested in their beliefs. 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. Which is ironic: because the exploration of the reality and all that is encompassed within it might actually help to support their belief. But they may never know, because they protect it and defend it at all costs. 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".

In that "answer" ... it doesn't really explain the *why* though, and I think the "why" is where it gets personal and unique in some ways to each individual. The denial, dissonance, projection, of an otherwise non-delusional person ... it doesn't explain the "why".

I think one of the reasons why is often fear. Fear of multiple things. In the beginning of Genesis 1, right there, we have Adam and Eve not heeding what God said. This lead to the fall, etc. 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 !" etc. and 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."

Of course, I'm speaking in generalities as I said ... but I think that is one root of the fear, 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. There is a very limited manner in which you can question. If a situation or hypothetical seems to even question a belief in something that God is believed to have said, it is either rejected or explored only in the context of a belief already held, etc. Thus, it is limited, and the belief is only reinforced (confirmation bias, etc). So we have the cult/dictatorial government/brainwash effect.

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).

 

[PsychoSarah]

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?

The point is that you won't get any benefit. My premise doesn't allow for any other result other than either you deciding to go to heaven and letting the two individuals suffer in hell or to take their place in hell forever. If you decide to take their place, there is no doubt, that torture would never cease and you would never go to heaven. You aren't giving up anything if your deed gets you saved, and it doesn't follow the premise, let's assume that once confined to hell god shall not try to save you.

If you make the sacrifice you suffer in hell for all eternity on this premise. Would you do that for two strangers to go to heaven?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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, they are interested in their beliefs. 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. Which is ironic: because the exploration of the reality and all that is encompassed within it might actually help to support their belief. But they may never know, because they protect it and defend it at all costs. 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".

In that "answer" ... it doesn't really explain the *why* though, and I think the "why" is where it gets personal and unique in some ways to each individual. The denial, dissonance, projection, of an otherwise non-delusional person ... it doesn't explain the "why".

I think one of the reasons why is often fear. Fear of multiple things. In the beginning of Genesis 1, right there, we have Adam and Eve not heeding what God said. This lead to the fall, etc. 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 !" etc. and 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."

Of course, I'm speaking in generalities as I said ... but I think that is one root of the fear, 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. There is a very limited manner in which you can question. If a situation or hypothetical seems to even question a belief in something that God is believed to have said, it is either rejected or explored only in the context of a belief already held, etc. Thus, it is limited, and the belief is only reinforced (confirmation bias, etc). So we have the cult/dictatorial government/brainwash effect.

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).

Sure, fear has something to do with it. I think avoiding the logical conclusions that such hypotheticals lead to also has something to do with it. I'm hesitant to call it avoiding "truth" though, because we're speaking strictly about hypotheticals. We can draw logical conclusions from them, but they aren't necessarily going to reflect a truth. (If that makes any sense to you lol)

It is something we see amongst believers time and time again though. It makes statements about atheists being "close-minded" all the more laughable and ironic. Head over to the Ethics and Morality section and you'll see the avoidance of hypotheticals all over the place. Probably the most common is the many threads where the OP asks, "What would you do if god told you to kill someone?". Every time someone new gets that question in their head and then thinks it's a good thread gets the exact same results...10+ pages of believers trying to explain how the hypothetical is "impossible." You, I, and most atheists understand that even if it were impossible, it doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical. It forces the believer to choose between disobeying their god, or killing someone...so they'd rather pretend the question doesn't exist.

There's many other examples too. I started a thread once where I asked, "What if god appeared before you and told you the bible (or your beliefs) was wrong?" It's another question with logical conclusions that the believer would rather avoid than even consider for a moment. IMO if you avoid simply considering a scenario just because it's not consistent with what you believe...you've reached the depths of close-mindedness.

 

[TillICollapse]

Sure, fear has something to do with it. I think avoiding the logical conclusions that such hypotheticals lead to also has something to do with it. I'm hesitant to call it avoiding "truth" though, because we're speaking strictly about hypotheticals. We can draw logical conclusions from them, but they aren't necessarily going to reflect a truth. (If that makes any sense to you lol)

Yes I understand what you're saying about hypotheticals ... but this raises an interesting point I'll make here in a moment ...

It is something we see amongst believers time and time again though. It makes statements about atheists being "close-minded" all the more laughable and ironic. Head over to the Ethics and Morality section and you'll see the avoidance of hypotheticals all over the place.

Discussions on ethics and morality. Ugh. I've said this about "philosophizing" before and personally, I feel the same way about sitting around and talking about "ethics and morality" lol: it's like a bunch of people sitting around and masterbating but no one is orgasming lol. Although I think I just described the internet in general, actually (well, partially . And I'll be surprised if that comment doesn't get censored lol)

Probably the most common is the many threads where the OP asks, "What would you do if god told you to kill someone?". Every time someone new gets that question in their head and then thinks it's a good thread gets the exact same results...10+ pages of believers trying to explain how the hypothetical is "impossible." You, I, and most atheists understand that even if it were impossible, it doesn't matter, it's a hypothetical. It forces the believer to choose between disobeying their god, or killing someone...so they'd rather pretend the question doesn't exist.

Okay now here is the point I just mentioned I was going to make:

I find that most believers treat their "truths" on about the same level as hypotheticals anyway So while discussing them, realistically, will only reveal so much about a person, and reality, and truth, etc ... for some, I think they basically treat hypotheticals and truth equally anyways.

Case in point:

Most believers will say they "believe the Bible", or that unbelievers are going to go to hell, etc. In other words, someone sitting across from you, having coffee with you, may "believe" that you are actually going to go to hell. Die, suffer, etc. And they can sit there with a smile on their face, enjoy their coffee, hope you enjoy yours, so on and so forth.

Yet I imagine that if your life were suddenly in danger in that coffee shop ... they might spring to action in an attempt to protect you, save you, rescue you, something. In other words, I doubt they would sit idly by and keep enjoying their coffee while you risk suffering and death.

Now ... if they really, and truly believe, that you were "hell bound" ... why not intervene the same way as when a "real threat" to your life is upon you ?

To further the example: let's say you needed medical attention. They may call 911, or even throw you into their car and rush you to the hospital, waiting nervously to see if you'll be all right. In other words, they wouldn't mind getting their hands dirty, sacrificing their time and energy, emotions, hopes, etc ... in the hope to help you out for a positive outcome to the trauma that befell you.

If they are willing to do that at the drop of a hat in a moment ... why not when they are having coffee with you ? Why not get between you and ANY perceived threat, getting their hands dirty, going the distance to see that the threat was taken care of, and that you were safe ?

Another example: There is a thread in another part of the forum where someone has boasted (I'm paraphrasing here) that they view those who care about stuff-and-things as "less spiritual". They are concerned with soul winning, and not "stuff". Do you think that person will give me all of their belongings and resources and just hand them over ? There are even scriptures that show Jesus asked certain people to give away all their things to the poor and follow Him. Do you think, if cornered, that the person who was boasting such things would give me all their belongings, in accordance with their own POV ? Would they even hand over the very computer they are using to get online and type out their response, for that matter ? I've tried this with people ... no one has done that yet. The person who exclaims, "I only care about Jesus, not any of this stuff !" has yet to hand over to me ALL their stuff.

One more example: Occasionally I have known some people who said they were struggling with something they viewed as a sin, etc. They wanted prayer, and answers about stopping whatever they were doing. They were in anguish, agony, they wanted so badly to stop and try ... and they would go days sometimes without "sinning", showing how much they "cared", etc. If only God would heal them, etc. They were so afraid of consequences, and going to hell, or harming themselves spiritually. I have personally said to some people, "How about this ... you pay me 5$ the next time you "sin". And then the next time after that, you pay me $10. Increase it by 5$ every time you commit that "sin". I'll give all the money to a charity."

This usually froze them in their tracks. Some saw immediately what that was pointing out about their "beliefs on sin": if they really believed they were in danger of hell/consequences/etc ... they would stop. After all, they would stop if it meant they started losing money. So the reality of losing money was more real than their "belief".

Others would get upset with me, even beginning to DEFEND their own "sin" lol ! The idea of them paying me money every time they sinned, to which I would give the money away to charity even ... made them angry lol. They would rather keep sinning against their God, than to give away money to charity.

My point is that the "truths" many claim to believe ... are realistically treated about on the same level as hypotheticals anyway. They aren't really treated as "real", because if they were, I imagine people would be responding RADICALLY differently "in real life". If someone really believed you were going to hell ... why not get between you and the threat and do whatever it took to protect you ? If someone really believed that such-and-such "sin" was wrong ... why does the sudden motivation of losing money bring more immediate results than the "fear of hell", consequences, etc ? On and on.

There's many other examples too. I started a thread once where I asked, "What if god appeared before you and told you the bible (or your beliefs) was wrong?" It's another question with logical conclusions that the believer would rather avoid than even consider for a moment. IMO if you avoid simply considering a scenario just because it's not consistent with what you believe...you've reached the depths of close-mindedness.

Yes, but close-mindedness is often the goal in cognitive dissonance, by it's very definition

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes I understand what you're saying about hypotheticals ... but this raises an interesting point I'll make here in a moment ...

Discussions on ethics and morality. Ugh. I've said this about "philosophizing" before and personally, I feel the same way about sitting around and talking about "ethics and morality" lol: it's like a bunch of people sitting around and masterbating but no one is orgasming lol. Although I think I just described the internet in general, actually (well, partially . And I'll be surprised if that comment doesn't get censored lol)

Okay now here is the point I just mentioned I was going to make:

I find that most believers treat their "truths" on about the same level as hypotheticals anyway So while discussing them, realistically, will only reveal so much about a person, and reality, and truth, etc ... for some, I think they basically treat hypotheticals and truth equally anyways.

Case in point:

Most believers will say they "believe the Bible", or that unbelievers are going to go to hell, etc. In other words, someone sitting across from you, having coffee with you, may "believe" that you are actually going to go to hell. Die, suffer, etc. And they can sit there with a smile on their face, enjoy their coffee, hope you enjoy yours, so on and so forth.

Yet I imagine that if your life were suddenly in danger in that coffee shop ... they might spring to action in an attempt to protect you, save you, rescue you, something. In other words, I doubt they would sit idly by and keep enjoying their coffee while you risk suffering and death.

Now ... if they really, and truly believe, that you were "hell bound" ... why not intervene the same way as when a "real threat" to your life is upon you ?

To further the example: let's say you needed medical attention. They may call 911, or even throw you into their car and rush you to the hospital, waiting nervously to see if you'll be all right. In other words, they wouldn't mind getting their hands dirty, sacrificing their time and energy, emotions, hopes, etc ... in the hope to help you out for a positive outcome to the trauma that befell you.

If they are willing to do that at the drop of a hat in a moment ... why not when they are having coffee with you ? Why not get between you and ANY perceived threat, getting their hands dirty, going the distance to see that the threat was taken care of, and that you were safe ?

Another example: There is a thread in another part of the forum where someone has boasted (I'm paraphrasing here) that they view those who care about stuff-and-things as "less spiritual". They are concerned with soul winning, and not "stuff". Do you think that person will give me all of their belongings and resources and just hand them over ? There are even scriptures that show Jesus asked certain people to give away all their things to the poor and follow Him. Do you think, if cornered, that the person who was boasting such things would give me all their belongings, in accordance with their own POV ? Would they even hand over the very computer they are using to get online and type out their response, for that matter ? I've tried this with people ... no one has done that yet. The person who exclaims, "I only care about Jesus, not any of this stuff !" has yet to hand over to me ALL their stuff.

One more example: Occasionally I have known some people who said they were struggling with something they viewed as a sin, etc. They wanted prayer, and answers about stopping whatever they were doing. They were in anguish, agony, they wanted so badly to stop and try ... and they would go days sometimes without "sinning", showing how much they "cared", etc. If only God would heal them, etc. They were so afraid of consequences, and going to hell, or harming themselves spiritually. I have personally said to some people, "How about this ... you pay me 5$ the next time you "sin". And then the next time after that, you pay me $10. Increase it by 5$ every time you commit that "sin". I'll give all the money to a charity."

This usually froze them in their tracks. Some saw immediately what that was pointing out about their "beliefs on sin": if they really believed they were in danger of hell/consequences/etc ... they would stop. After all, they would stop if it meant they started losing money. So the reality of losing money was more real than their "belief".

Others would get upset with me, even beginning to DEFEND their own "sin" lol ! The idea of them paying me money every time they sinned, to which I would give the money away to charity even ... made them angry lol. They would rather keep sinning against their God, than to give away money to charity.

My point is that the "truths" many claim to believe ... are realistically treated about on the same level as hypotheticals anyway. They aren't really treated as "real", because if they were, I imagine people would be responding RADICALLY differently "in real life". If someone really believed you were going to hell ... why not get between you and the threat and do whatever it took to protect you ? If someone really believed that such-and-such "sin" was wrong ... why does the sudden motivation of losing money bring more immediate results than the "fear of hell", consequences, etc ? On and on.

Yes, but close-mindedness is often the goal in cognitive dissonance, by it's very definition

You've made a very good point about faith....and I agree, it is treated more as a hypothetical than a reality. Reminds me of the point I just made about early christian martyrs an another thread. Early christians practically begged to be martyred...and why not? A free pass to heaven at the hands of your murderer sounds like a good deal to me.

However, when it comes to the interwebs and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]....speak for yourself.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

The point is that you won't get any benefit. My premise doesn't allow for any other result other than either you deciding to go to heaven and letting the two individuals suffer in hell or to take their place in hell forever. If you decide to take their place, there is no doubt, that torture would never cease and you would never go to heaven. You aren't giving up anything if your deed gets you saved, and it doesn't follow the premise, let's assume that once confined to hell god shall not try to save you.

If you make the sacrifice you suffer in hell for all eternity on this premise. Would you do that for two strangers to go to heaven?

Sure I'll suffer in Hell, if it means two people don't have to.

 

[TillICollapse]

However, when it comes to the interwebs and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]....speak for yourself.

That's why I said *partially*

And interwebs ... suddenly sounds so dirty lol ...

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

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.

When I was younger, I read a sermon by the 18th century New England theologian Jonathan Edwards that had a pretty strong effect on me at the time. Not Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, actually, that one didn't bother me. It was The Future Punishment of the Wicked. Most of the sermon is pretty standard stuff, but then it gets to a sort of thought experiment about what Hell would be like.

That was...pretty emotionally scarring at the time. Not least because, as a child, I was pretty sure that I was going to Hell for some inexplicable reason. Suffice to say that I really don't believe anyone who says that they would voluntarily go to Hell in someone's place has really thought it through.

Also, Homestuck is awesome. I will never look at a bucket the same way again.

I vaguely considered making my avatar a SBaHJ character. Then, I realized that anyone who didn't get the joke would just be confused and possibly horrified.

 

[Sayre]

No, I wouldn't. I'm selfish.

I know plenty of people who claim they would but I'm willing to bet that when the rubber hits the road they back out. Just like people who claim to be bicurious until the offer comes up... when reality strikes they suddenly realise they are straight.

Funny thing, that.

We have an image we like to portray about ourselves - I don't think we know ourselves well.

 

[TillICollapse]

No, I wouldn't. I'm selfish.

I know plenty of people who claim they would but I'm willing to bet that when the rubber hits the road they back out. Just like people who claim to be bicurious until the offer comes up... when reality strikes they suddenly realise they are straight.

Funny thing, that.

We have an image we like to portray about ourselves - I don't think we know ourselves well.

I quote it often:

"Everyone has a plan ... 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

 

[quatona]

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.

Neither my morality nor my empathy seem to equip me with answers to questions of eternal dimensions. Sorry.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Neither my morality nor my empathy seem to equip me with answers to questions of eternal dimensions. Sorry.

There's a good point here.

We, as human beings, are intelligent enough to conceive of the existence of something infinite or eternal. We can understand the meaning an endless Universe, or an expanse of time so vast that it doesn't have an ending. I really don't think that we're equipped to actually think about something on that scale, though.

It kind of plays into what someone said earlier. If someone really believed, and understood, that another person was going to go to Hell, then that would make a significant difference in their behavior toward that person. I don't think the key there is the "believing", though. I think that it's the understanding. I might meet someone who sincerely believes that I am going to go to Hell, but that person isn't going to be genuinely able to understand what that belief means because the scale and depth are alien to human experience.

It's also probably why questions about how to mesh the idea of Hell with the idea of a good God don't come up to people very often. When I was religious, that didn't bother me. The Book of Joshua, though? That bothered me. That's because I can understand the destruction of a city with all of its inhabitants. I can't understand or really contemplate billions of people in eternal perdition. Anything we can't really comprehend goes into the realm of the theoretical and philosophical. It's obviously easy to worry about suffering if you believe that there's an eternal prison waiting for you if you mess up, but it's hard to get yourself worked up about the idea of the actual eternal aspect of it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sure I'll suffer in Hell, if it means two people don't have to.

Specifically two people you don't know that were going to end up in hell. They could be anything from child killers to people who simply weren't religious in life or even children, but you will not know why they were going to end up in hell either.

 

[TillICollapse]

Anything we can't really comprehend goes into the realm of the theoretical and philosophical.

Yes, and this is often true even with non-extraordinary things. The way we envision a thing to be (and how we envision our reaction to that thing) is often different than the REALITY of a thing and how we actually respond when it's happening. As stated earlier, this is why hypotheticals are only so relevant.