What if I was killed?

[scorpia]

Come up with your own method; burnt in lava slowly and painfully, drowned, slammed in the head, strangled, whatever.

But say if I was killed by someone, and I was a murder victim,

Does this make me innocent?

[WelshBoy]

Innocent of what?

[scorpia]

Anything. Completely innocent.

[ST88]

Does this make me innocent?

I don't get where you're going with this. Do you mean if you were unnecessarily deprived of life, you get automatic absolution for anything you've done?

[scorpia]

I don't get where you're going with this. Do you mean if you were unnecessarily deprived of life, you get automatic absolution for anything you've done

Relating to the "Murderer goes to heaven, murder victim goes to hell" argument. I suppose one may say that it would be better if it was the other way around, that the murderer, whether he repents or not, should go to hell, while the victim goes to heaven. I find it harsh at least for the murderer who repents.

And the victim? Maybe he or she didn't deserve it, but why can't he or she go to hell? The argument does not in anyway describe the situation further. Why was the victim killed? What if he or she deserved it? For some reason it seems that once you're a matyr you're perfect. I find it twisted and want to know why people think like that.

[ST88]

I don't get where you're going with this. Do you mean if you were unnecessarily deprived of life, you get automatic absolution for anything you've done

Relating to the "Murderer goes to heaven, murder victim goes to hell" argument. I suppose one may say that it would be better if it was the other way around, that the murderer, whether he repents or not, should go to hell, while the victim goes to heaven. I find it harsh at least for the murderer who repents.

And the victim? Maybe he or she didn't deserve it, but why can't he or she go to hell? The argument does not in anyway describe the situation further. Why was the victim killed? What if he or she deserved it? For some reason it seems that once you're a matyr you're perfect. I find it twisted and want to know why people think like that.

From what I understand, the only criteria for Christian Heaven is to believe, so regardless if you were done some injustice on Earth (or had done it), if you are a sincere believer/repenter, then you can get away with anything. And if you are an unbeliever, there is no amount of good will you can engender or good works you can perform that will save you. I think martrys have to have been killed for a righteous cause, but I'm not sure. That alone could give them the right to be held in high regard.

Nathan Hale was an American patriot and a horribly incompetent spy for the Americans -- he did just about everything wrong that you could do as a spy, but when he said, "I have but one life to give for my country" (or something like that), he was espousing a cause, so he is remembered as a martyr. That is the example held up -- not that of being a poor spy, in the words of David McCullough, but that of being willing to die for a cause.

[scorpia]

From what I understand, the only criteria for Christian Heaven is to believe,

Incorrect

James 2 :14-27 for one points out that faith without deeds is useless. If the only requirement was to believe, then demons would be the ones going to heaven.

I think martrys have to have been killed for a righteous cause, but I'm not sure. That alone could give them the right to be held in high regard.

If they have been righteous then fine. But why is it that whenever someone is killed they are considered righteous, without consideration for their deeds or feelings?

[ST88]

From what I understand, the only criteria for Christian Heaven is to believe,

Incorrect

James 2 :14-27 for one points out that faith without deeds is useless. If the only requirement was to believe, then demons would be the ones going to heaven.

I would go with the words of Jesus rather than the words of James, and "useless" does not necessarily mean that it's useless for the user; more likely it is useless for the commuinity of Christians. If you just believe without acting on it, that can be construed as selfish. But you'll get into Heaven anyway.

I think martrys have to have been killed for a righteous cause, but I'm not sure. That alone could give them the right to be held in high regard.

If they have been righteous then fine. But why is it that whenever someone is killed they are considered righteous, without consideration for their deeds or feelings?

Most likely the reasons are political. No one wants to offend the families of the dead because they have it bad enough without thinking ill of their loved one. Another reason is that, as humans, we have a need to put things into categories -- we like to define who people are based on their actions, and usually like to pull out one specific action as an exemplar. The death of a person for a cause would be such an exemplar -- it could either be seen as the culmination of a righteous life or the last righteous action of a questionable character that absolves that person of all past behaviors, defining them by their ultimate actions out of political expediency.

[McCulloch]

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Firstly, there are not many Christians who would admit that there is a conflict between the words of Jesus and the words of his apostles. They are all part of the inspired Holy Scriptures.

Notice some of the words used by James. Can that faith save him? He is asking a rhetorical question with an implied negative answer. Faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself. Faith without works is dead. Would you argue that a dead faith is a saving faith? I do not think you can dismiss James' words by saying that he was only referring to how faith without works is useless for the community of Christians.

If you just believe without acting on it, that can be construed as selfish. But you'll get into Heaven anyway.

I do not think that you can get James to agree, if you read him in context.

[ST88]

What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?... blah blah blah Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. blah blah blah You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. blah blah blah

Firstly, there are not many Christians who would admit that there is a conflict between the words of Jesus and the words of his apostles. They are all part of the inspired Holy Scriptures.

Pshaw. You well know that scripture is abused by those who don't know what they're doing.

Here's a seeming direct conflict:

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:28 et al

In other words, the Pharisee's way of salvation is to follow all those weird rules in the Old Testament, but he's here to tell you that those rules don't mean anything. No pigeon sacrifice is needed, no ablutions are required. And, by extension, no acts at all are required for salvation -- the burden shall be light. The beauty of this is that True Christians are willing to take on the burden even without this requirement. When James speaks of a dead faith, he does not mean that the lack of works will disqualify you from Heaven, he means that the fruits of a dead faith are no works. The fruits of an active faith are necessarily good works, that's just how a True Christian operates, and it's how you can tell who has the active faith and who has the dead faith. I.e., the community of Christians has no use for someone with a dead faith at that point.

John 15 is the fruits of the vine speech, which I think backs me up.

And -- "Show me your faith..." means exactly what it says. How do you show your faith to another Christian? You can't just say you have faith (show apart from your works), because anyone can do that. They're just words. But actions, now, boy, that stuff means something.

Furthermore -- "You see that a man is justified..." also means exactly what it says. "Justified?" what? He must show his faith by works in order to prove that he is a True Christian to other True Christians -- he must justify his professions of faith to them: Don't write checks with your mouth that your butt can't cash. And, again, the beauty of this is that True Christians do this without prompting, without having been demanded to do so.

If you just believe without acting on it, that can be construed as selfish. But you'll get into Heaven anyway.

I do not think that you can get James to agree, if you read him in context.

In context, I think James is arguing for the opposite of the causal link you have posed, and would most heartily agree with me.