Board index ‹ Salvation

[Throw It All Away]

It's funny how the ends don't justify the means unless they do. God lets his son be killed to save humans from Hell. I think that means isn't pretty abhorrent. That is taking life to gain life, but God plays by different rules.

Maybe this idea doesn't work as a debate idea, because from my point of view it's akin to a reductio ad absurdim argument but from someone who believes it's a real question.

[jimwalton]

There's quite a difference between murdering all children (to the rapid extinction of humanity) to send the little lambs to heaven, and the loving act of substitutionary atonement. Just because both are means to ends teleology doesn't mean they are parallel concepts. The primary difference is in the one case, it's brutality foisted on another, and in the other it's a voluntary sacrifice for the sake of another. It's abhorrent to say, "I love humanity so much I will kill them all"; it's completely different to say, "I love humanity so much I will sacrifice myself in death so they can all live." Jesus laid down his own life (John 10.11, 15, 17, and esp. 18).

[Throw It All Away]

my was that the ends do justify the means. Isn't it awful to kill your own son, like God did? But it was loving you say. Because of what it was for! There was an idea of a pregnant woman killing herself and unborn baby so the baby could go to heaven and not have a chance to go to hell and the mom goes to hell for murder and suicide. Would that noted self sacrifice? Killing your like Jesus did is still death, and my point was you said taking a life to gain life is oxymoronic.

[jimwalton]

I know that your point was that "the ends do justify the means," but my point was that Jesus' sacrifice doesn't fit into that category. Sometimes the means are not only appropriate (and not just justified by the ends), but also the only possible way to accomplish the end. In the case of the gratuitous killing of babies, the ends would be the only possible justification, but in that case it would not even justify the means.

In the case of Christ, the equation is a different one. Jesus' death for humanity is not in "the ends justify the means" category. When humans turned away from life, death was the necessary and only possible result. That situation created an imbalance in the justice equilibrium of creation (a "debt" of sorts) that can only be rectified by bringing the system back into equipoise. In this case the means (Jesus' death) is not justified by the ends but is justified by the necessary requirements of the equation.

Let me try an analogy. 2+2=4 is a simple equation (duh). It sounds to me as if you are saying that this is an ends-justifies-the-means contrivance, because the sum of 4 forces us to use a plus sign between the two 2s. But it doesn't fit the category. It's not that kind of equation. In the same sense, Jesus' death was the only necessary and only possible means to the end; it is not justified by the end (as if the process was otherwise illegitimate), but makes sense only as we consider the entire picture. You are playing with just one angle of the picture, and a skewed one at that.

[Mr. Dobro]

Wait, wait, wait. I have a question here. You are saying that it's okay to commit suicide, but in the same ideology, if you commit suicide you go to hell. Does this mean that Jesus is in hell, since he effectively did not try to prevent his death?

[jimwalton]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Nothing you said is what I am saying, what Christians believe, or what happened.

1. I'm NOT saying it's OK to commit suicide. I never close to saying, hinting, or implying anything like that.

2. The Bible does NOT teach that if you commit suicide you go to hell. Nor did I ever say, hint, or imply anything like that.

3. Jesus not preventing his death is NOT suicide. The firefighters who ascended the Twin Towers to rescue citizens very well knew they could be climbing to their deaths, which was in fact the case. These were not actions of suicide, but of heroism. A soldier who crosses a field being strafed with gunfire to save a buddy is not guilty of suicide, but of compassion, even though he knows death is likely. Jesus didn't take his own life, but he did lay it down willingly. It was not an act of suicide, but of sacrificial love.

[Mr. Dobro]

I will address only point 3 here. The firefighters went there to save people. They knew the risk, but did not know it's a suicide and it was not suicide. My father is a firefighter, so do not go there. Same goes for the soldier. The soldier does not know if he will survive or not. He considers the risks and takes action. That's different then accepting a 100% sure death. It's a huge difference. Accepting and Self-imposing that death on one's self is suicide. Taking a chance of 50/50 or even 70/30 is not a suicide.

[jimwalton]

Your points are excellent. You must be aware that Jesus came here, in the same spirit, "to save people." Yes, Jesus did know he was going to die, as do many people who take on missions of compassion or duty to save others. Since your dad is a firefighter, you must also know that at times noble people volunteer for action that they know will be fatal—they consider the risk and take that action—because they do it out of love and duty. The stories of such heroes are plentiful. The world is not worthy of them. We have heard of doctors who enter infected areas, knowing it will mean their demise, but they do it for noble and worthy reasons. People offer their bodies to medical experiments knowing it will help future generations. These are not, as the original poster intimidated, absurdities or oxymoronic nonsense, but actions of deep compassion and nobility.

Remember, Jesus did not kill himself, and that's a huge difference for our conversation. He did knowingly enter a situation he knew would be fatal for the most compassionate motive possible: to save the world. It's an action of love and nobility, not one of nonsense and absurdity.

[Mr. Dobro]

In fact, I did so myself. I was a volunteer firefighter for my country. Although it never became necessary I was registered and trained firefighter as well. I know the feeling of your father going out on duty and many times I wanted to follow him in the fire to increase his odds of survival, but instead I had to stay home and hope that the dice hits the good odds for my family. Sorry. I got kinda emotional there.

Anyway, let me go back a bit. My father would not go if he knows he will die. He goes if he knows that he can help and there is a chance of survival. No fireman with his sense will suicide for chance of being successful, although I would argue that in some cases, against all logic, this has happened and I consider those personal heroes. Now, do I consider this a suicide? Yes, so my first point stands.

Also, my body is donated. The moment I turned 18 I went to the hospital to sign the papers. If I die, no matter what reason, according to my will, my body is to be used in anything that science requires, without a need for burial. This includes being cut up or done—anything—because I find no reason for people not to subject their body, although I do see their point and I respect everyone's decisions and I will not argue against that decision.

The problem is, I do not believe that this is a moral thing. Let's say that everything about it is true, and Jesus died for our sins. I do not want this to be on my conscience. I prefer, if he existed as a person, to live and for me to be judged based on my sins instead of using a scapegoat. If it is true, I would be deeply dissapointed in him for not allowing me to take responsibility as a sensible man. I do not respect him robbing me from this right that I WANT TO TAKE. (assuming everything is true).

Here I argue, though, that (assuming there is God and it is the Christian god, because those are 2 separate debates on their own):
God sacrificing his god made him sinful, thus I lose respect towards him.

His son not allowing me to stand on trial for my own sins and defend myself, instead making me into partner in crime, is robbing me of my self-identity and my self-respect. If it's true and when I die and go ahead to be judged for my soul and I find that he did do this, I would immediately lose all respect towards myself and ask "GOD" to destroy my soul for eternity.

I personally feel offended. I have not been born at that time and I believe in the basic virtue of not condemning the son for the sins of the father. Thus, all children are born without Sin. Does this mean that one Jesus needs to be sacrificied for every generation?

Now, I see a lot of interesting debate about morality. While I do agree, if I selectively look at the Bible (and I stress "selectively"), I do find some things that are very beautiful as far as morality, but the Bible is not the first book to accompany those, so I do not believe it should claim them.

I have read the Qur'an, The Bible (new and old testament), The Book of Ra, The book of death, and many other holy books, since I was obsessed when I was little under what religion I fall. My Mother and Father are Christians. Although to be honest, it's not what it was, and I might have converted them a bit more to Atheism just by being near them and explaining things.

So, I will stop here since I am getting too much off the point and wait for your reply. Although, I would to end on a good point. I do like your way of expression and showing that you are open to talk. In other words, I respect you as a person.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your response. I appreciate honest and respectful dialogue. Also, thank you for your service to your community as a firefighter. There are so many dangers and risks, and people who take on such risks need to be honored. So I honor you for taking that role.

I also have signed up for organ donation. I obviously won't need my body any more—why not make any parts of it available to those who can benefit from it?

Let me propose this situation. Suppose a hostile army invades our country and takes it over. Suppose part of their "cleansing" of the population (maybe similar to what Mao Tse Tung did in China) is to go house to house and gather up the artists for execution. Suppose my son is an artist, and they come to my house. When the knock on the door and ask for Joe Smith, before my son can respond I step to the door and say, "I am Joe Smith," and they take me away and execute me. Have I done a sinful or a noble thing?

Also, let's talk about Christ's substitution for you. It's not that you don't deserve to be punished for the wrongs you have done, nor that he is not allowing you to take responsibility for your actions. According to the Bible, it's Jesus' love for you that motivates him to step up to the door and say, "Take me instead." If your father did that for you, you might not allow it, and you might not be pleased (not wanting to be without your father or for him to be executed in your place), but you wouldn't be disappointed. You wouldn't lose respect for him. I dare suggest that it would increase your respect for him.

I know the Bible is not the first or the only book about morality. It doesn't claim to be a guide about moral philosophy; it claims to be a guide of the truth about God and humanity, and of salvation and judgment. In the process, it does have much to say about morality. to be sure, though, salvation is not to be confused with "being good" and judgment with being bad. Salvation is for those who turn to Jesus in love, accept his free gift of salvation, and let him change their nature from that of sin to that of righteousness.

I happen to think it's pretty obvious, just by looking at the world around us, to know that people are not born good. The Bible teaches not that they are born evil, but that they are born separated from the life of God and disconnected from him. It's that disconnect that allows sin to wreak havoc on our lives. We see horrific things happening in the world every day now, with shootings, explosions, trucks plowing through crowds of innocent people, and corruption in business and politics. It's clear to me that the world is not improving. All of our learning, technology, philosophies, advances in science, and communications—and everything's getting worse. It's a problem of the soul, in my opinion (and the Bible's teaching). All the "progress" doesn't change the heart.

But Jesus doesn't need to be sacrificed for every generation. The book of Hebrews tells us that as a representative of both divinity and humanity his death provides the possibility of atonement for all people at all times of history. Once is good for all.