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?

[scorpia]

If you are killed it should be a loss. The world should be a better place because you are here and a worse place when you gone even if it is better when you were here.

Should be doesn't mean it is

I would say that it does matter if they're people or not. People still have the opportunity to mull over their faith. If you're a demon, the existence of God has already been proven to you, so faith is irrelevant.

They believe in God but do not have faith, I think there is some confusion here between belief in existance and faith.

1) As far as I can tell, Jesus was angry with the Pharisees not because they believed in God, which they did, but because they were leading their followers astray with insufficient information

Hence just because they believed God existed doesn't let them off the hook

2) Any personanages that came before Jesus were judged differently and separately

Well that James passage I gave mentioned that Abraham was considered righteous for his faith, and that is the same for people today

3) God can get angry with someone he loves and still salvate them later

Not unless the person repents

Even if you were completely innocent before your death, if you didn't live a Christian life and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, then I will be seeing you in hell.

And how am I "completely innocent?"

[Confused]

Scorpia wrote:
Quote:
Even if you were completely innocent before your death, if you didn't live a Christian life and accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, then I will be seeing you in hell.
And how am I "completely innocent?"

I would use the laws of man to determine your innocence. In other words, did you live your life trying to cause the least amount of damage but the most amount of assistance that was possible within the scope of your abilities. Did you never intentionally cause undo harm. Have you contributed to the better of mankind? Did you not break any of mans laws (or just not get caught doing so). Did you not contribute to the cause of your murder (have an affair with a married man, then get shot by his wife, etc...). With all the above and probably some I can't think of now, I would consider you completely innocent. But by religious standards, all this means nothing. Even if you did most of your good works anonymously (never allowed anyone to know it was you who did it, so as to avoid doing it for praise as well as because it is for the better of mankind) it would go unnoticed by God simply because unless you believed in Him and acknowledged Christ, we will still meet up in hell.

[Cathar1950]

There was none as the apostles were having visions. Religion in the USA is surly a free market commodity.

Some times when I hear Christians talk about how unworthy they are I am reminded of the bit my John Handy in special moments or something like that. The son asks his dad why it is raining and the dad says, “God is crying”. The son asks, “why God is crying” and the father answers, "it was something you did."
I sometimes see many Christians as one large dysfunctional family that wants every one to be adopted.
Guilt and shame are two of the big market strategies. The other one is warm fuzzies.

[ST88]

Just before we come to a screeching off-track halt...

I would say that it does matter if they're people or not. People still have the opportunity to mull over their faith. If you're a demon, the existence of God has already been proven to you, so faith is irrelevant.

They believe in God but do not have faith, I think there is some confusion here between belief in existance and faith.

OK. What is the difference between belief and faith?

1) As far as I can tell, Jesus was angry with the Pharisees not because they believed in God, which they did, but because they were leading their followers astray with insufficient information

Hence just because they believed God existed doesn't let them off the hook

It's true that before Jesus made his claim, people were judged by different means. You couldn't believe in him before he came around. But now you ask about yourself. Your unnecessary deprivation of life is doubly tragic because you may not have had time to accept your Christian self. Your suitability for the Kingdom of Heaven would be judged solely on what you believed up to that point. Whether or not people you left behind judged you on similar merits is largely a cultural/political issue.

2) Any personanages that came before Jesus were judged differently and separately

Well that James passage I gave mentioned that Abraham was considered righteous for his faith, and that is the same for people today

Yet he wasn't a Christian, couldn't have been. And now only the Christians are righteous. There must have been a different standard.

3) God can get angry with someone he loves and still salvate them later

Not unless the person repents

The point here is not that repentance is unnecessary, but that God can be angry with people he loves.

Which brings up another question: Are good works required for repentance? I don't think they are. I think that this is also meant to be an internalized process, a state of mind. Good Christians will stumble, and they may wish to perform works as a part of their repentance, but all they really have to do is ask forgiveness, no?

[scorpia]

OK. What is the difference between belief and faith?

Well, from what I've been taught, with belief, you figure that something is there. Like some pencil on your desk. You might see it and you'd believe it's there. Or you might lose it, look for it, but believe it's supposed to be in a certain spot. Faith I'm told has more to with trust. Say I take the pencil and say that I can use it to hit the apple on your head (an example), you might think that I can't and that would mean a lack of faith in me, or you might say okay I know you can do it and that would be faith.

With all the above and probably some I can't think of now, I would consider you completely innocent. But by religious standards, all this means nothing. Even if you did most of your good works anonymously (never allowed anyone to know it was you who did it, so as to avoid doing it for praise as well as because it is for the better of mankind) it would go unnoticed by God simply because unless you believed in Him and acknowledged Christ, we will still meet up in hell.

Yet he wasn't a Christian, couldn't have been. And now only the Christians are righteous. There must have been a different standard.

If only the Christians are righteous that's a whole lot of people admired in the OT that are going to hell which isn't what the Bible says.

Then again, God, Jesus.. All the same.

The point here is not that repentance is unnecessary, but that God can be angry with people he loves.

True

Which brings up another question: Are good works required for repentance? I don't think they are. I think that this is also meant to be an internalized process, a state of mind. Good Christians will stumble, and they may wish to perform works as a part of their repentance, but all they really have to do is ask forgiveness, no?

Yeah, but I figured that to prove it they would have to do the good works, if they can.

There was none as the apostles were having visions. Religion in the USA is surly a free market commodity.

Some times when I hear Christians talk about how unworthy they are I am reminded of the bit my John Handy in special moments or something like that. The son asks his dad why it is raining and the dad says, “God is crying”. The son asks, “why God is crying” and the father answers, "it was something you did."
I sometimes see many Christians as one large dysfunctional family that wants every one to be adopted.
Guilt and shame are two of the big market strategies. The other one is warm fuzzies

Hahaha.

I would use the laws of man to determine your innocence.

This is why I'm confused. The laws of man vary so much.

In other words, did you live your life trying to cause the least amount of damage but the most amount of assistance that was possible within the scope of your abilities. Did you never intentionally cause undo harm.

What sort of harm? If I never hurt anyone but acted like an ass most of the time would that count?

Have you contributed to the better of mankind?

No

Did you not break any of mans laws (or just not get caught doing so). Did you not contribute to the cause of your murder (have an affair with a married man, then get shot by his wife, etc...).

No (at least I hope not)

[scorpia]

OK. What is the difference between belief and faith?

Well, from what I've been taught, with belief, you figure that something is there. Like some pencil on your desk. You might see it and you'd believe it's there. Or you might lose it, look for it, but believe it's supposed to be in a certain spot. Faith I'm told has more to with trust. Say I take the pencil and say that I can use it to hit the apple on your head (an example), you might think that I can't and that would mean a lack of faith in me, or you might say okay I know you can do it and that would be faith.

With all the above and probably some I can't think of now, I would consider you completely innocent. But by religious standards, all this means nothing. Even if you did most of your good works anonymously (never allowed anyone to know it was you who did it, so as to avoid doing it for praise as well as because it is for the better of mankind) it would go unnoticed by God simply because unless you believed in Him and acknowledged Christ, we will still meet up in hell.

Yet he wasn't a Christian, couldn't have been. And now only the Christians are righteous. There must have been a different standard.

If only the Christians are righteous that's a whole lot of people admired in the OT that are going to hell which isn't what the Bible says.

Then again, God, Jesus.. All the same.

The point here is not that repentance is unnecessary, but that God can be angry with people he loves.

True

Which brings up another question: Are good works required for repentance? I don't think they are. I think that this is also meant to be an internalized process, a state of mind. Good Christians will stumble, and they may wish to perform works as a part of their repentance, but all they really have to do is ask forgiveness, no?

Yeah, but I figured that to prove it they would have to do the good works, if they can.

There was none as the apostles were having visions. Religion in the USA is surly a free market commodity.

Some times when I hear Christians talk about how unworthy they are I am reminded of the bit my John Handy in special moments or something like that. The son asks his dad why it is raining and the dad says, “God is crying”. The son asks, “why God is crying” and the father answers, "it was something you did."
I sometimes see many Christians as one large dysfunctional family that wants every one to be adopted.
Guilt and shame are two of the big market strategies. The other one is warm fuzzies

Hahaha.

I would use the laws of man to determine your innocence.

This is why I'm confused. The laws of man vary so much.

In other words, did you live your life trying to cause the least amount of damage but the most amount of assistance that was possible within the scope of your abilities. Did you never intentionally cause undo harm.

What sort of harm? If I never hurt anyone but acted like an ass most of the time would that count?

Have you contributed to the better of mankind?

No

Did you not break any of mans laws (or just not get caught doing so). Did you not contribute to the cause of your murder (have an affair with a married man, then get shot by his wife, etc...).

No (at least I hope not)

[ST88]

OK. What is the difference between belief and faith?

Well, from what I've been taught, with belief, you figure that something is there. Like some pencil on your desk. You might see it and you'd believe it's there. Or you might lose it, look for it, but believe it's supposed to be in a certain spot. Faith I'm told has more to with trust. Say I take the pencil and say that I can use it to hit the apple on your head (an example), you might think that I can't and that would mean a lack of faith in me, or you might say okay I know you can do it and that would be faith.

That's interesting, but I don't see the distinction. Your example with the pencil is only different because the trust is with the "thereness" of the pencil or with yourself for having remembered it was there.

Yet he wasn't a Christian, couldn't have been. And now only the Christians are righteous. There must have been a different standard.

If only the Christians are righteous that's a whole lot of people admired in the OT that are going to hell which isn't what the Bible says.

Then again, God, Jesus.. All the same.

The point here is that pre-Christ, the rules for Reward were different. I can't remember the name of this particular grandfather-clause-like dogma. In our post-Christ era, your belief/non-belief is now the question.

Which brings up another question: Are good works required for repentance? I don't think they are. I think that this is also meant to be an internalized process, a state of mind. Good Christians will stumble, and they may wish to perform works as a part of their repentance, but all they really have to do is ask forgiveness, no?

Yeah, but I figured that to prove it they would have to do the good works, if they can.

And here's the matter. Prove it to whom? Proof to God is in the believer's heart. God needs no physical labor-type proof. It's only to maintain your standing in the community of Christians that this proof matters.

And here's what the problem is: There are plenty of people who do good in a Christian way without a Christian faith. It is even possible to fake it, if that's your cup of tea. It's so easy for Christians to be led astray because these good works can appear to be fruits of faith, for how else can you prove it to others?

If you died with faith but performed your good works anonymously, how would people remember you? Conversely, what if you died without faith, but openly did good works anyway? Philosophical Christians might say that only your heart matters, but in either sitaution a case could be made that you made the world a better place despite only in one are you currently not Rewarded.

I would use the laws of man to determine your innocence.

This is why I'm confused. The laws of man vary so much.

This is true. There is some agreement among legal systems, but there is no one universal standard that has been observed.

[MagusYanam]

And here's the matter. Prove it to whom? Proof to God is in the believer's heart. God needs no physical labor-type proof. It's only to maintain your standing in the community of Christians that this proof matters.

And here's what the problem is: There are plenty of people who do good in a Christian way without a Christian faith. It is even possible to fake it, if that's your cup of tea. It's so easy for Christians to be led astray because these good works can appear to be fruits of faith, for how else can you prove it to others?

If you died with faith but performed your good works anonymously, how would people remember you? Conversely, what if you died without faith, but openly did good works anyway? Philosophical Christians might say that only your heart matters, but in either sitaution a case could be made that you made the world a better place despite only in one are you currently not Rewarded.

Thing is, there are really two Christianities out there. Well, two poles, anyway, with shades in between: a Christianity based on law and a Christianity based on love. Both are really as old as Christianity itself, but the Christianity of law has always been more popular with political Church leaders and those wanting to maintain the status quo, so that's the one most people usually think of when they think of Christianity.

The Christianity of law sees things in terms of requirements and rewards. If you acknowledge Christ as Saviour, if you believe in the virgin birth, if you conform to our doctrine, then you will be Rewarded. And that tends to force people into an ethical paradigm of 'if you don't conform to our doctrine, that must mean you are really not a good person, or really not deserving of Reward'.

The Christianity of love sees things from a different perspective. The Reward is not in question, nor who receives it - it is not something earned by filling a checklist or remembering the secret code to the pearly gates. What is important is what the Reward means for us and what our responsibilities become in light of that Reward. (Think of the parable of a King who forgives the debts of a servant, and the way the servant is expected to behave towards others afterward.)

I tend to see things this way: even if you don't believe - I'm of the belief that belief is not a choice - you are still Rewarded. Scripture tells us this much, that Jesus came to save the world, not just Christians. What matters is what you do with what you have been given. Do you squander that grace, burying it beneath the ground, or do you take it with you into the world and multiply it with each person to whom you show it?

In answer to your question, I don't think it is possible to 'fake' grace or deeds of merit. Whether you know it or not, all such deeds and grace are works of the Holy Spirit. Even if you die when none of your deeds are known, or even if you die with unformed or contrary beliefs about God, that grace is still there. And where the grace is, so is the Reward.

[ST88]

The Christianity of love sees things from a different perspective. The Reward is not in question, nor who receives it - it is not something earned by filling a checklist or remembering the secret code to the pearly gates. What is important is what the Reward means for us and what our responsibilities become in light of that Reward. (Think of the parable of a King who forgives the debts of a servant, and the way the servant is expected to behave towards others afterward.)

Magus,
This is a very interesting viewpoint, but throughout scripture there is the idea that there is an "us" and a "them". There are those that will never be able to be "converted" as it were and there are those that are either of the flock or are not yet of the flock. Further, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction (or irony) here. You say that the inward responsibility for Reward is within us all, rejecting the idea of law, yet you go on to say that with this inward reponsibility becomes outward responsibility, that there are things you must do, tasks you must accomplish, in order to to carry out this Reward. What is the difference between having this Responsibility and following the Christianity of Law?

I tend to see things this way: even if you don't believe - I'm of the belief that belief is not a choice - you are still Rewarded. Scripture tells us this much, that Jesus came to save the world, not just Christians. What matters is what you do with what you have been given. Do you squander that grace, burying it beneath the ground, or do you take it with you into the world and multiply it with each person to whom you show it?

What does What matters mean? What are the consequences for squandering grace?

In answer to your question, I don't think it is possible to 'fake' grace or deeds of merit. Whether you know it or not, all such deeds and grace are works of the Holy Spirit.

Negating the good works/no God argument... You can still do things in the name of God without good intentions (or without good results) -- they would then appear good to "other" Christians simply because God was invoked.

Even if you die when none of your deeds are known, or even if you die with unformed or contrary beliefs about God, that grace is still there. And where the grace is, so is the Reward.

If I'm reading you correctly, it doesn't particularly matter what we do with this grace -- all goodness that may be done by non-believers is still doing the work of God (heads I win/tails you lose). That's all well and good. But then automatic Reward means not just LET'S PARTY! but LET'S PARTY HARD! Why is ascetecism preached by Jesus if none of this matters?

[MagusYanam]

This is a very interesting viewpoint, but throughout scripture there is the idea that there is an "us" and a "them". There are those that will never be able to be "converted" as it were and there are those that are either of the flock or are not yet of the flock. Further, it seems to me that there is an inherent contradiction (or irony) here. You say that the inward responsibility for Reward is within us all, rejecting the idea of law, yet you go on to say that with this inward reponsibility becomes outward responsibility, that there are things you must do, tasks you must accomplish, in order to to carry out this Reward. What is the difference between having this Responsibility and following the Christianity of Law?

Yes, but the 'us' versus 'them' you find in Scripture is not as solid and set-in-stone as a lot of Christians like to think it is. Unbelievers and even heathens come off better than those who follow the law to the letter and lord it over other people.

You bring up the metaphor of the shepherd and his flock. Tell me, which sheep are the ones that the shepherd has to care the most for? Does he not go out after the lost, instead of cutting his losses and tending to those he already has 'inside the fence', as it were?

You say that there is a contradiction in my thinking, and that fundamentally there is no difference between responsibility and requirement. My problem is that to speak of 'requirements' a.) puts the cart before the horse and b.) leads to some pretty Scripturally messed-up conclusions. (Such as that God actively keeps people out of Heaven.)

A.) can be explained as such: it isn't the case that you have to do something in order to attain grace. If that were the case, it would be a reward but it would not be grace. And that tends to lead to a kind of mercenary mentality: 'okay, I'm going to do x, y, z and t so I can get into Heaven, but screw everything else that's not on my to-do list'.

It's like what Confucius was getting at when he said that when people are led by laws and strict punishments, they will follow the law to avoid the punishment but will have no sense of shame - no moral centre, as such. But if they are led by example and ritual (in my analogy, God's grace and Jesus' self-sacrificial love) they will have a sense of shame and furthermore, a sense of participation. So, in answer to this sentiment:

If I'm reading you correctly, it doesn't particularly matter what we do with this grace -- all goodness that may be done by non-believers is still doing the work of God (heads I win/tails you lose). That's all well and good. But then automatic Reward means not just LET'S PARTY! but LET'S PARTY HARD! Why is ascetecism preached by Jesus if none of this matters?

I'd say that an universalistic grace does indeed matter, and that 'LET'S PARTY HARD!' is probably not an appropriate response to such grace, or even a realistic one. I don't know about you, but if I'm really, really deep in debt and the bank's going to foreclose on my house, but all of a sudden the bank decides, for reasons unknown to me, to cancel my debt - screw it, I'm going to show some fiscal responsibility, not respond by 'partying hard', as you put it.

I think a lot of Christians are scared of the implications of universalism - that if everyone is already saved, what stops people from being naughty? And a bigger question, what does our role as the 'us' become in relation to 'them'? And, yes, these are serious questions. But I think stopping people from being naughty isn't nearly as important as encouraging them to do good - moral cowardice is in no short supply in this world, Lord knows I've demonstrated it more than a few times in my life; if we become more concerned about how what we do or how we think affects this world rather than our chances of getting into the next, don't you agree that the world would already be a much better place to live in?

(Sorry if I sounded too Michael Jackson 'Heal-the-World'-like there, but I think you get my point.)

Negating the good works/no God argument... You can still do things in the name of God without good intentions (or without good results) -- they would then appear good to "other" Christians simply because God was invoked.

Does how you are seen in the eyes of other Christians really matter to you? And if it does, is that something to be proud of?

I'd rather think of the utilitarian effects of my actions, myself. Can't speak for other Christians in this regard.

What does What matters mean? What are the consequences for squandering grace?

From an existentialist standpoint, what does it say about you if you squander grace? If there's still something there worth saving, that will be saved, but would you feel content just being saved and not having done anything with it?

Let's just put it this way - I think that reading 'the outer darkness' and 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' as 'Hell' is a misinterpretation of the text, but I still think it ought to be taken seriously, if conscience has any value at all.