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?

[ST88]

Magus,
Before I begin, I would like to say that I'm sure McCulloch is a bit miffed for being accused of speaking my words, though I feel a sense of pride that you thought my words were coming from him.

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?

This isn't what you're talking about though. You're talking about the fact that these sheep will return eventually no matter what happens. So why would the shepherd waste valuable time that could be used maintaining the bulk of the flock in view? For that matter, all sheep will be fine: there are no wolves, no sheep rustlers, no hoof traps -- they'll all be back in the pen no matter what happens. Why are shepherds even necessary?

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.

This analogy doesn't quite work either, because not only is foreclosure not an option, but God's handing out mansions for everybody. As stated, there aren't even any payments and you still get the mortgage interest deducation.

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?

Absolutely, that would make for a more wonderful world, with or without Michael Jackson. But this is the same problem that Communism has. If you tell people that Big Brother will take care of everything, then why do anything? Shaming people into doing "Good" stuff isn't going to cut it because there is no standing for anyone to impart shame if they don't have the Word of God behind them. Shame would be made irrelevant, wouldn't it? God smiles upon all, it's just the other Christians who will frown upon you. Which means...

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?

Apparently not ,and apparently so. And doesn't this conflict with much of the New Testament? Without the need for a community of Christians to remind everyone of the True Path, what exactly IS required for Christians to do with their time?

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.

Huh? Hell isn't real, but we should fear it anyway?

And the what does it say about you if you squander grace? argument doesn't work either. Without a definite set of Christian Rules(tm), what -- after all -- does being "saved" mean? If it's not possible to squander grace, what is the purpose of saving?

This line of thinking would, I think, tend to make people say "Thank you Jesus for getting flogged and asphixiated for me so that I might live my life in peace," no? If this is what Christianity amounts to, then what's with all the speeches in the NT? What's with all the commandments in BothT?

[scorpia]

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.

Sorry I meant between teh first two examples with the last one; where I throw the pencil

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.

Maybe, but I still doubt that even if one believed in Christ/ God, if they cursed God and hated him then they would not be the ones rewarded.

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.

Because actions are more important.

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

This is why I prefer to stick with God if I can, if I desire to be moral at all. He is all-knowing at least.

If I try to find one among humanity, which human should I choose? Should I change it to my own tastes? Morality (and religion) is like being stuck in traffic, you might find that you're in the worst lane but if you change it then the new one you're in is the wrong one, and it goes on. you might as well choose one and stick with it, even if it is close minded. At the very least one may be loyal.

[MagusYanam]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I'm sure McCulloch is a bit miffed for being accused of speaking my words, though I feel a sense of pride that you thought my words were coming from him.

Whoops. Sorry about that, McC and ST88. I'll take more care to look first. Guess I'm just so used to McCulloch putting on the pressure in a civilised fashion that my response to such posts became automatic that way.

This isn't what you're talking about though. You're talking about the fact that these sheep will return eventually no matter what happens. So why would the shepherd waste valuable time that could be used maintaining the bulk of the flock in view? For that matter, all sheep will be fine: there are no wolves, no sheep rustlers, no hoof traps -- they'll all be back in the pen no matter what happens. Why are shepherds even necessary?

Oh, I beg to differ. The world is full of wolves and rustlers and traps - oftentimes they are things like wealth or political ideology or something as basic as fear, and God has to go out of his way to save us from such things all the time. And I think he spends just as much effort on the non-believers as he does on believers, if not more.

This analogy doesn't quite work either, because not only is foreclosure not an option, but God's handing out mansions for everybody. As stated, there aren't even any payments and you still get the mortgage interest deducation.

Hmm. I tend to read it as that foreclosure was a foregone conclusion until Jesus came along. And how is God handing out mansions for everybody with no payments and interest deduction?

To use a different analogy, try the parable of the vineyard. Even the people that come to work at the vineyard at the end of the day get the same pay as the workers who started the day working. It's absurd and unfathomable, why the landowner would behave that way.

Absolutely, that would make for a more wonderful world, with or without Michael Jackson. But this is the same problem that Communism has. If you tell people that Big Brother will take care of everything, then why do anything? Shaming people into doing "Good" stuff isn't going to cut it because there is no standing for anyone to impart shame if they don't have the Word of God behind them. Shame would be made irrelevant, wouldn't it? God smiles upon all, it's just the other Christians who will frown upon you.

How is shame made irrelevant? Shame can't be induced through laws and punishments - take a look at Chinese history. The eras with the most degraded, discontented conditions were also the ones that enforced the laws most harshly. But when things get bad enough you have a 'revolution' and you put in place a ruler who does, for the most part, nothing. This was the case with the downfall of the Qin dynasty and the rise of the Han. So why is it, during the Han, you had a much healthier society with a much higher rate of prosperity and willing public participation than during the Qin?

I see the distinction this way: the God of the Christianity of Law is like Qin Shi Huangdi. He looks to make sure everyone is following His Laws and worshipping Him, and if you aren't - too bad for you, you die a lingering death (or eternal torture, whatever). The God of the Christianity of Love is like Han Gao Huangdi: He delivers His people and allows them to do things their own way. He leads by moral example, and people naturally follow (as it happens throughout history, when a leader displays strong moral character even when he demonstrates no force, people are inclined to follow: I'm thinking not only of Jesus here but of Mozi, Mohandas Gandhi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, Martin Luther King). So in answer to your question:

Without the need for a community of Christians to remind everyone of the True Path, what exactly IS required for Christians to do with their time?

... well, hopefully we become moral examples to humankind by living in peace and supporting the cause of social justice in those places in the world where it is wanted most.

Huh? Hell isn't real, but we should fear it anyway?

Huh? Where are you getting this we should fear Hell anyway stuff from?

I said 'the outer darkness' and 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'. The implication in these texts is that these are places of remorse - wailing and gnashing your teeth is what happens when you do something you regret bitterly. It isn't Hell we should fear, it is our own actions and how they will affect this world. Eventually, I think, even the worst of blackguards will have a conscience, and it will catch up with them.

And the what does it say about you if you squander grace? argument doesn't work either. Without a definite set of Christian Rules(tm), what -- after all -- does being "saved" mean? If it's not possible to squander grace, what is the purpose of saving?

What does being 'saved' mean? Haven't I been saying that? It means you have that much more opportunity and that much more incentive to be a light to the world instead of spending so much effort and energy worrying about matters eschatological.

And it is possible to squander grace, by not cultivating your moral virtues and not demonstrating them to a needy world. And the world will be that much dimmer for it, and I think those who don't cultivate their moral virtues will come to regret it. But I don't think it will be through the means of eternal torture, that's my point.

This line of thinking would, I think, tend to make people say "Thank you Jesus for getting flogged and asphixiated for me so that I might live my life in peace," no?

Allow me to ask you a question, ST88: do you think strict laws and punishments, Qin-style, are the only way to get people to even pretend to act morally? Is force (physical or psychological) the only way, and does moral force of the kind I described above count for nothing?

[ST88]

This analogy doesn't quite work either, because not only is foreclosure not an option, but God's handing out mansions for everybody. As stated, there aren't even any payments and you still get the mortgage interest deducation.

Hmm. I tend to read it as that foreclosure was a foregone conclusion until Jesus came along. And how is God handing out mansions for everybody with no payments and interest deduction?

To use a different analogy, try the parable of the vineyard. Even the people that come to work at the vineyard at the end of the day get the same pay as the workers who started the day working. It's absurd and unfathomable, why the landowner would behave that way.

That's why we have labor unions now, isn't it? Everyone gets the same deal up front. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your "everyone gets grace" idea, because that makes it sound like there are no responsibilities for action at all. Sure, we may feel remorse about what happens in this life, but not every single time that we do something bad. I myself have run through the checkout line with an extra box of detergent and not gone back into the store to point out the mistake. I don't feel a shred of guilt about this (though I do still think about it, to be sure). Murder has that whole Raskolnikov guilt around it, but what about adultery? People get civil divorces all the time without consulting a church and re-marrying, technically committing adultery. I argue with my parents. I shout out curses when I stub my toe. I do not place one god before all other gods. In short, I do not live a Christian life. Yet I volunteer my services (or drastically discount) to local non-profit groups, I give blood, I even have the "donor" sticker on my license. I go out of my way to help others in tiny little ways dozens of times per day. I gather you would say that the actions I do for the forces of good are an expression of God's grace and are possibly proof that I feel it without Knowing. So do I have grace if I don't work for the forces of good in God's name? And if I do, what happens when I stop working for whatever I feel are the forces for good?

Absolutely, that would make for a more wonderful world, with or without Michael Jackson. But this is the same problem that Communism has. If you tell people that Big Brother will take care of everything, then why do anything? Shaming people into doing "Good" stuff isn't going to cut it because there is no standing for anyone to impart shame if they don't have the Word of God behind them. Shame would be made irrelevant, wouldn't it? God smiles upon all, it's just the other Christians who will frown upon you.

How is shame made irrelevant? Shame can't be induced through laws and punishments - take a look at Chinese history. The eras with the most degraded, discontented conditions were also the ones that enforced the laws most harshly. But when things get bad enough you have a 'revolution' and you put in place a ruler who does, for the most part, nothing. This was the case with the downfall of the Qin dynasty and the rise of the Han. So why is it, during the Han, you had a much healthier society with a much higher rate of prosperity and willing public participation than during the Qin?

Shame is irrelevant because it means nothing in terms of Eternal Reward. Without a Law telling you that there are some things where it's appropriate to wag your finger in someone else's face, when do you wag? I agree that harsh punishments are not a successful motivator without accompanying education.

I see the distinction this way: the God of the Christianity of Law is like Qin Shi Huangdi. He looks to make sure everyone is following His Laws and worshipping Him, and if you aren't - too bad for you, you die a lingering death (or eternal torture, whatever). The God of the Christianity of Love is like Han Gao Huangdi: He delivers His people and allows them to do things their own way. He leads by moral example, and people naturally follow (as it happens throughout history, when a leader displays strong moral character even when he demonstrates no force, people are inclined to follow: I'm thinking not only of Jesus here but of Mozi, Mohandas Gandhi, Te Whiti o Rongomai, Martin Luther King).

But that's just it, if Han Gao Huangdi lets the people do what they want, what's stopping them from iniquity, his moral example? Come on now. You give humanity more credit that it deserves. Even in healthy societies there are prisons, there are psychopaths, there are people who will steal silver candlesticks, there is depravement and arbitrary homelessness; meanness and pettiness; disputes over nothing. I can't speak to Chinese history, but I can say that moral example may work on some of the toadying upper classes or intelligentsia, but the hoi palloi will do what they can to get by -- success breeds complacence, unrealistic expectations, and gives one the luxury of living for an idea.

Huh? Hell isn't real, but we should fear it anyway?

Huh? Where are you getting this we should fear Hell anyway stuff from?

I said 'the outer darkness' and 'wailing and gnashing of teeth'. The implication in these texts is that these are places of remorse - wailing and gnashing your teeth is what happens when you do something you regret bitterly. It isn't Hell we should fear, it is our own actions and how they will affect this world. Eventually, I think, even the worst of blackguards will have a conscience, and it will catch up with them.

Not everyone has the same conscience.

And the what does it say about you if you squander grace? argument doesn't work either. Without a definite set of Christian Rules(tm), what -- after all -- does being "saved" mean? If it's not possible to squander grace, what is the purpose of saving?

What does being 'saved' mean? Haven't I been saying that? It means you have that much more opportunity and that much more incentive to be a light to the world instead of spending so much effort and energy worrying about matters eschatological.

Or scatalogical (sorry, couldn't resist). Wading through the muck and mire is the life lot of many, just getting through the day can be a chore to some. Being a "light to the world" I'm sure appeals to a few, but many people aren't like that. Even Christians.

And it is possible to squander grace, by not cultivating your moral virtues and not demonstrating them to a needy world. And the world will be that much dimmer for it, and I think those who don't cultivate their moral virtues will come to regret it. But I don't think it will be through the means of eternal torture, that's my point.

I still don't know what "come to regret it" means, and this is the central question -- Will I feel remorse for not making the world a better place in this world or the one to come?

This line of thinking would, I think, tend to make people say "Thank you Jesus for getting flogged and asphixiated for me so that I might live my life in peace," no?

Allow me to ask you a question, ST88: do you think strict laws and punishments, Qin-style, are the only way to get people to even pretend to act morally? Is force (physical or psychological) the only way, and does moral force of the kind I described above count for nothing?

In direct deflective response to your question -- the human population is so vast and varied that you are bound to have some people who will respond to various punishment/reward scenarios in different ways. People disposed to "receive grace" will receive it. People disposed to "fear Hell" will fear it. Strict laws and punishments will appeal to some people and will get results for some. Moral force will appeal to others and will get similar results. And there are many many other power structure motivations that will appeal to many many others. Which is why, I think, there are so many different messages coming out of the Bible as to what will work for you (from a literary evolution point of view). There is no one-size-fits all solution that will work -- you will always be leaving out one group of people or another if you only preach one way. This is the condition of humanity that we are in and itself is possibly a refutation of one-size-fits-all Christianity.