callistahogan | Interestingness

The trouble with sola fide is there's no impetus to do good things because doing good things gets you into heaven. Which, given that a significant fraction of humanity lacks the impetus to do good things because they're good things to do, means that a significant fraction of Christians who believe sola fide are jerks. I'd never heard the "your works determine the rewards you will receive once you get to heaven" bit, though, and I'm curious how that works out. Do works also determine the severity of punishment in hell?

And would you please stop saying "Christian" and meaning "a particular flavor of Christian"? Because every time you do, it gives me severe cognitive dissonance along the lines of saying "not all apples are apples", and there's also the implication (though you didn't mean it this way, I'm sure) that the apples who are apples are better than all the apples who are not apples, which is quite arrogant.

*blink*

Huh?

How am I supposed to stop saying Christian and not mean a specific flavor of Christianity? Beth, I am a Baptist, so obviously, when I say Christian I'm going to mean a "specific flavor" of it. Some people who say they're Christians *aren't*, believe it or not. People interpret Christianity in different ways, whether those ways are right or not, so I can't possibly say "Christian" and mean every single branch of Christianity out there. It's simply impossible.

And I don't remember the verse exactly, but it's something about the works you do on Earth being rewards in heaven, and that determines what you'll be doing there. I'll have to try and find that verse.

So say "Christian" only when you mean "anyone who calls themselves Christian", which is the popular definition of the term. Then think of a more specific term--a common one I've seen is "real true Christian" but it's too easy to make it sarcastic--to refer to the subset of people who call themselves Christians to whom you wish to refer. Is it really that difficult?

Beth, I don't see the problem with using the broad term "Christian." In this post, I wasn't even referring to those who called themselves Christians vs. those who are actually Christians--I was referring to the faith itself--but if it makes you happier, I'll try to be more specific nowadays. Maybe a key will be helpful if the context doesn't help. :)

What you said was "in the Christian faith, it's the opposite--you get to heaven based on salvation and faith, and your works determine the rewards you will receive once you get to heaven." Which is the case only for specific subsets of Christianity. Other specific subsets of Christianity say good people who have never had the chance to accept or reject Jesus go to heaven. Yet other specific subsets of Christianity say good people go to heaven regardless of what they believe. Yet other subsets of Christianity say good works are only possible through faith, and salvation is only possible through faith, which means all good people believe in Jesus on some level, regardless of whether they've consciously accepted or rejected him or whether they've even heard of him. So what you said is false as a blanket statement about all of Christianity, but with appropriate specificness, it's quite true.

But in the *Bible*, the book that all Christians should look to for guidance, it says that only those who believe in Jesus Christ will go to heaven. The first verse that comes to mind is John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." And the verse where Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life and nobody comes to the Father except through Me" (paraphase mine). So, sadly, the only biblical explanation is the one stated in my post. That doesn't mean people don't reject it, though, even those who say they are Christians.

I believe my last example of beliefs held by a certain subset of Christians was derived directly from "nobody comes to God except through Jesus". Actually I believe all my examples were derived from that bit. Actions speaking louder than words, and Jesus looking at what people do instead of what people believe or say they believe, and equal yays for all the people who love one another as themselves regardless of why they do it. Something like that.

But it's not a matter of Jesus looking for what people do. It's about Jesus looking for people who honored Him, who tried to keep His commandments, and didn't get caught up in worldly things. He looks to those willing to turn their entire lives to him, not those that do good things yet reject Him.

There are quite a few verses that go over this issue.

For example, Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Or Titus 3:4-5: "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."

Or Second Timothy 1:8-9: "Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began."

There are plenty of other verses, which point to the fact that only those who believe in Jesus Christ as their savior can go to heaven. In fact, the Bible directly *refutes* those that say you can go to heaven based on your works, as said in Ephesians 2:8-9. Simply doing good things and getting to go to heaven is not biblical, in the slightest, and I've done a lot of studying of this over the years.

And if you need more verses, I'm more than willing and able to give them to you.

Very well then. Conceding the point that only people who believe in Jesus go to heaven. Why, then, should Christians try to be good people? They're getting eternal reward of some degree no matter what they do. Why should nonChristians try to be good people? They're doomed to burn forever no matter what they do. What is the point of doing good things and being a good person (other than that Jesus said to), when doing good works neither affect whether you're on the admittance list for heaven nor are a consequence of your being on it?

Well, for the Christian, Jesus commands us to try and do good things. Even though we're guaranteed to go to heaven, that doesn't mean we can go back on Jesus' teachings (loving everyone, living a moral life, not stealing, reading the Bible, praying) and live just like everyone else. That essentially says "you know what, Jesus? I'm just going to accept your gift, but I'm not going to give it back. I'm just going to be like the rest of the world, even though I know that I shouldn't." Those that truly accept Christ... they have the Holy Spirit in them. They do good things because Jesus commands us to, and that if we do not, essentially, we haven't really accepted Him, because we're not doing what Jesus called us to do after accepting Him.

As for the nonChristian, doing good things is still doing good things, even if it doesn't do much good in the afterlife. There's no reason why nonChristians can't do good things simply because they don't believe. I don't know the answer to the last part of your question, though, so I'll get back to you once I study a bit more and ask my dad about it.

I said other than that Jesus said to. And of course there's no reason nonChristians can't do good things. My question was, why should we? One finite span of life really is an eyeblink in comparison to infinite time. Why does what we do in that eyeblink matter, if only one thing we do has any effect on the rest of our existence? What's the point of not misusing that eyeblink if we're sure we got the one important thing right, or if nothing we do can make up for getting the one important thing wrong?

Beth, there *is* no other reason to do good things other than Jesus said to. If I didn't know that being kind to people, not lying, being helpful, and all of those other things was beneficial not only to me and the people around me but to God as well, I probably wouldn't bother doing good things. I'm sorry if you want me to think of a reason other than because Jesus said that it was the best thing to do, because I can't. NonChristians truly have no reason to do good things without Christ.

NonChristians truly have no reason to do good things without Christ.

Ponder this statement for a while, please. If nothing else, to gain an understanding of why other flavors of Christianity think works are important.

Works are important, yes, but they don't get people to heaven. I've pondered this quite a lot over the past few days, and honestly, I stand by my assertion that nonChristians have no reason to do good things without Christ, since they have no one to show them that it's the right thing to do.

Life is a finite span of time--this is a fact. The finite pales in comparison to the infinite--this is a fact. Ergo, anything we do in life pales next to the infinity after death. The only exception, you say, is whether one believes in Jesus, which has nothing to do with works, because you say works neither help one get to heaven nor can only be done by the Holy Spirit working through one. Ergo, you say works are unimportant. But you say works are important. This does not compute.

And obviously nonChristians do have reason to do good things, and that reason has nothing to do with Christ, because nonChristians do do good things without being Christians.

And "Jesus said to" probably isn't the reason Christians do good things either. If you wish to say it is, I get to bring up the old debate about "is it good because God says to do it, or does God say to do it because it's good?" and pull out the verses about the slaughter of the Amalekites et al and I don't think you want to go there since I know full well the only way to resolve that debate and remain a Christian is to say "my head hurts, stop talking about this".

Beth, I said works are unimportant for the nonChristians, since they do not get one to heaven. However, for the Christian, works determine the rewards you will get once you get to heaven, as said in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15:

"For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on this foundation ith gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each oen's work, of what sort it is.

If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward."

In other words, when you become a Christian, you're supposed to do all you can to further His kingdom. In my case, that's by evangelism, witnessing to my friends. You're supposed to do nice things, not focus on riches, like money. If you do those things, and those nice things last, then you'll get a reward. If you focus on money, though, and the material things, it won't last and your reward will be lesser in heaven.

And actually, no. NonChristians have no reason to do good. Without Christ, none of us have any reason to do anything, because withoput Christ we're lost.

And I do have an answer for your last question, about the Amalekites, but since you won't agree with that or understand it, I might as well let that go for now.

I'm also freezing this thread--my new rule is that a debate can only go on for three days. If it's important for us to continue this conversation, you know where I am half the time.

Gah. I have an answer to your question, but I have to go now--I want to get a chunk of Liberal Fascism done--but when I wake up in the morning, I'll reply, if I can remember.

I doubt I'm ever going to be convinced about believing in a God to get to heaven. As I've said, it seems pointless. We have so many religions in the world, a fair few of them say, "This religion is the one true one" and only one of them can be right.

Assume it's Judaism. How do we know that it's that one? Yes, Jews might all try and convert us. But why should their belief supersede a Buddhist's view when the Buddhist BELIEVES that their religion is the right one?

The way I see it, most of us all are screwed.

Ah, I see where my point of view wasn't clear. Yes, only one religion can be right. Yes, some religions are going to be wrong. However, for one religion to be right, there has to be evidence for that religion, isn't there? Even if you don't believe in that particular religion, there's got to be evidence.

And it's not a matter of believing it's right. Because believing it's right doesn't necessarily mean it's true. For Judaism, their Messiah has already come. In the texts they use to try and determine who the Messiah is, Jesus Christ has already fulfilled all of the prophecies needed. So, for the Jews, they need to forget about a lot of evidence in the favor of Christianity just because of that one point.

Also, no other religion believes that you get to heaven through salvation. Most religions feel like you can get to heaven based on works. Let's take Judaism, for example. Since they do not believe that the Messiah has come, they have no one to take away their sins. So, they believe that works will get them to heaven, even if they might worship God. They have to accept Jesus Christ and that He took the sins of man in order to get to heaven, but since they don't, they need to fall back on works. Does that make sense?

Christianity is an amazing faith, just because it's the only one that allows salvation through faith alone. Once you have that faith, you can't just go back on it--you have to live it. But Christianity is special.

As C. S. Lewis once said, "Christianity, if f alse, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

I understand your points--including your YIM corrected typo--but I still don't feel like it addresses my issues. Not your fault; I think it's just something that perhaps can't be resolved to my satisfaction.

I've read the Bible and I always liked how God would talk to people--commonly his prophets. The impression I was left with that it was like a telephone call--both parties spoke. If something like that happened to us, the people searching, then that would be awesome evidence.

But it doesn't. For whatever reason, God doesn't talk to us like he did in the days of Adam and Noah and Moses and all.

The current evidence is... not all that satisfactory to me. I believe I've heard that the Jews accept that Jesus Christ was a real person. They just don't accept that he was the Messiah.

For all we know, maybe magic IS real and Jesus Christ was a wizard with a bad idiot complex.

Well, I can't convince you. But everywhere I look, there's evidence for the Christian faith. Every single day, I can't go without seeing something that points toward Christianity being correct. He doesn't have to speak to me. He doesn't have to appear to me in a vision--all He has to do is *show* me who He is, what He's doing in my life, and the evidence people have found for Christ and Christianity for hundreds and even thousands of years. There's evidence everywhere... so many people only had to open their eyes a bit and look and they'd find it.

Sure, He doesn't speak to us. But, frankly, even if He did, people STILL wouldn't believe us. They'd claim that Christians were going nutty, so that wouldn't be evidence at all, really--it would just be another one of those "fundamentalist Christians need to be locked away from society" deals.

[A subset of] Christianity believing in salvation through faith alone != evidence that [this subset of] Christianity is superior to all other flavors of religion. It's evidence that [this subset of] Christianity differs from other flavors of religion on this point. Nothing more.

Judging by this, Jews have excellent reason to believe Jesus is not their Messiah. There's still anti-Semitism. There's still death. These things are supposed to go away when the Messiah comes. Some or most Christians, as I understand, believe those things won't go away (except in the unique case of Jesus) until the Second Coming. Ergo, what Christians will recognize as the Second Coming of Christ is what Jews will recognize as the first and only coming of the Messiah. I leave the implications of this for you to consider.

Beth, believing salvation through faith alone is not a subset of Christianity. That is the basic doctrine of Christianity: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came down from heaven to release us of sin. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO one comes to the Father except through Him. Any other choice is not Biblical, I'm sorry.

And, actually, Jesus didn't say that all of those things were supposed to go away. A common misconception is that Jesus is supposed to bring peace, when in fact it is entirely the opposite. Jesus is not going to bring peace to the Jews... unless they accept Him. After the Second Coming, yes, there will be no racism, prejudice, war, famine, death... but until then, He's not going to protect the Jews like he did in the ancient times.

A common misconception is that Jesus is supposed to bring peace, when in fact it is entirely the opposite.

For God so loved the world that he sent World War III?

(Which is one of my big problems with the whole Rapture/Tribulation idea, incidentally. Another is that the Rapture precedes the Second Coming, and the Rapture is Jesus coming to take all the believers to heaven, which makes the Rapture the One Point Fifth Coming. A third is the idea that Jesus will give his followers a shiny new world--"and the mountains will fall and the hills turn to dust", which, why? Wouldn't that make for really boring landscapes?--so there's no reason not to use and abuse and use up this one, and apparently Jesus won't consider saying "you're going nowhere till you clean up this mess!")

And it's equally unbiblical for women to go around with uncovered hair, FYI. Paul says so. I'll look up the verse if you like. Paul was quite the feminist for two thousand years ago--"neither Greek nor Jew nor slave nor free nor woman nor man", no distinctions, everybody equal--and if Paul lived today I doubt he'd approve of everything he told women to do two thousand years ago, but nonetheless.

And you missed my point. The Jews believe that X and Y and Z will go away when the Messiah comes. The Messiah came, you say, and he did not make X and Y and Z go away. Therefore, the Jews have only his word that he is the Messiah. And he is far from the only person throughout history to proclaim himself the Messiah. Why should they believe the word of this particular hi-I'm-the-Messiah crackpot over the word of their religious leaders?

In the case of the Rapture/Tribulation, God is giving us what we want. In today's world, we're trying as hard as we can to get away from God in any way possible. In those days, the world will be so bad that He'll bring the Christians up to Him, and give the nonChristians what they want--a world without Christ, without the Holy Spirit. So, we can't really angry at God because of the world people will be leaving in during that time, *because it's what they WANTED*.

I don't have time to get to the rest but, like I said, you know where to find me if you really want to continue this conversation.

"believing salvation through faith alone is not a subset of Christianity."

Sorry, wrong there. Catholics believe a whole bunch of "works" are necessary, including attending mass, giving confession, prayer, atonement, etc.

Of course I hear that some Christians consider the world's largest Christian church (Catholic) not to be truly Christian. I know my grandmother believed that I was no longer a Christian when I converted to Catholicism, despite the fact that my belief in Jesus had not changed ONE IOTA from before, and she prayed for my lost soul until she died. So, obviously her flavor of christianity, for all its "faith only" proclamations believes that despite belief in Christ, salvation can be LOST if one starts attending the wrong church.

Let me clarify. To get saved, you had to be believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. That's not debatable--that's what the Bible teaches on how to get saved. Works don't get you there. However, works do determine the level of "rewards" you get in heaven, and what you'll be doing there. That's where attending church, regularly confessing your sin, praying and reading the Bible come in.

And your grandmother is odd, because I believe that you can't lose your faith. Personally, I don't trust Catholics most of the time (it seems most of them don't really concentrate on the big stuff, and I've heard of a few churches where they don't read from the Bible) so it's just something that I have to look for, and worry about. :)

"Think not that I come to bring peace on Earth." He came here knowing that his beliefs were going to upset people. He came knowing what he was in for. And there were people who were upset that he wasn't there to establish some temporal--and thus temporary--peace.
God thinks big-picture.

Which doesn't explain why Jews are in worse trouble than anybody else who's not a Christian, despite the fact that the criteria the Jews have for their Messiah have not been met and thus the Jews have no reason to believe the Messiah has already come.

*sigh*
Clearly there's no talking to you about this.
Believe whatever you want. I'm only going to ask you once more to stop trying to discredit other people's beliefs just because you don't agree with them.
Again, none of us have ever gotten on your case for your beliefs. Please give us the same courtesy.

Fact: Jews are not Christians.

Fact: The single most important difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Fact: Jesus does not meet all the qualifications Jews have in mind for the Messiah. (Implied statement: if he did, they wouldn't be Jews, they'd be Christians.)

Fact: To anyone, such as any given Jew, who does not start with the assumption that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore speaking with divine wisdom and authority, Jesus sounds like he's equal parts wise man and megalomaniac.

Query: How does stating any of the above constitute a discrediting of or an attempt to discredit anyone's beliefs?

And I suppose it's pointless to say that I'm just trying to ensure all sides of all discussions know what all positions are and why all discussers hold the positions they do, and that I'd appreciate the courtesy being returned. I suppose it's equally pointless to ask why you commented at all if you were just going to declare a dead end to discussion upon having it pointed out that your initial comment did not actually address my statement.

And yet again you ignore me.
And quit playing the victim here. You're the only one who wants to keep this pointless argument going.

Fact: Jews are not Christians.

Fact: The single most important difference between Jews and Christians is that Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah.

Fact: Jesus does not meet all the qualifications Jews have in mind for the Messiah. (Implied statement: if he did, they wouldn't be Jews, they'd be Christians.)

Fact: To anyone, such as any given Jew, who does not start with the assumption that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore speaking with divine wisdom and authority, Jesus sounds like he's equal parts wise man and megalomaniac.

Query: How does stating any of the above constitute a discrediting of or an attempt to discredit anyone's beliefs?

I. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. ARGUE. ABOUT. THIS.
Do I have to draw you an evie picture?

I don't want to argue either. Yay for common ground. I do, however, want to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it any more than you want to argue about it, then please say so, and in future please refrain from saying anything on subjects you don't want to discuss, because the act of speaking invites a reply.

With you, arguing and discussing are the same thing. And there's a reason friends don't discuss politics or religion, you know.

From my end, "arguing" implies "intending to beat down the opponent", "debating" implies "intending to convince the audience if not the opponent", and "discussion" implies "intending to learn about other positions and explain one's own". I have fun discussions with Sarah. Occasionally we slip into debating, but the usual result of that is going back to common ground.

This is over. OVER. Quit picking everything I say apart. From now on do whatever you want. Pick on Heidi all you want, I'm evie done.

Heidi, consider this an apology for any picking on you that you feel I have done: I am sorry I have made you feel picked on, I did not mean to do it, and I shall endeavor to keep it from happening in the future.

Beth, here on LJ, you haven't picked on me. In our last discussion, it was perfectly civil, even though I doubt it got much good. It's just that I got overwhelmed with all your questions, and I couldn't answer them all at the same time. The only time I felt pressured was the YIM messages where you tried to get me to talk before I was ready to. I am going to address your points. Maybe not to you directly, but eventually, I am going to do a LJ post about all your issues. It might not be soon, but I will.

And please, like I said to Tim, if this comes up one more time, take it somewhere privately before I have to block you. Because I will--this is getting out of control. If you have that many issues, either talk to each other about it or try not to confront each other if it's that big. This is a public LJ, and I am not going to make it friends-only just so you two can argue all the time.

So, please, stop. Like I told Tim, I don't want to do this, but if it's necessary, I'll block both of you.

I think the problem with threads on your posts descending into arguments between me and Tim is this is the only place he bothers speaking to me anymore, and I don't realize that whatever he says is move one in the same damn argument until I've made moves two, four, and six trying to keep the discussion on the original track. I'm sorry about that, but I don't know what to do about it—I don't want to believe that anything he says to me is the start of an argument, I don't know how to get him to believe that I'm never trying to start an argument (converse, yes; discuss, hell yes; debate, sometimes; argue, no; fight, hell no), and I refuse to shut up whenever he speaks up, which is part in hopes that this time unlike all the last times he's speaking up because he's willing to converse and maybe discuss and just possibly debate, part that I'm not going to let him control my emotions or my reactions any more than I can help. And if he can't hear anything I say without getting pissed off, well, that's not my problem anymore.

Tim. I was not getting picked on. This time, it was a perfectly civil discussion until I decided I wanted to stop, because having a debate go on for weeks is too much for me and I wanted to stop it before it got too far. I simply couldn't answer all the questions Beth asked at the same time, and that's why I stopped--not because I was getting picked on.

And this isn't your fault, but, please, if something like this happens, take this somewhere privately. This is my LJ, a public LJ, and many people see it, not just Clan. So I'd prefer it if one of you could have the decency and take this somewhere privately before it escalates into something like this. If this happens one more time, I am going to have to seriously consider blocking both of you.

I am going to say this exact same thing to Beth.

Also, why isn't failing to accept Jesus one of the sins that Jesus preemptively washed away?

That does away with free will. Jesus Christ making it so that people must accept Him forfeits the free will that God instilled in us in the beginning to be able to make our own choices between life and death. Jesus gave us the choice between life and death, but it's up to us to either accept it or reject it.

I'm not following. People are free to lie or to be truthful, to steal or to refrain from stealing, to reject Jesus or to accept him. Jesus's death by torture erases the lies and the theft--why not the rejection?

Beth, if Jesus erases the sin of rejection, then He's erasing free will. He's saying that you must believe in Me, and you must believe in Me now. He's not giving us a choice at all between acception and rejection, if he washes away the sin OF rejecting Him.

Again, I've got to go. But I have another point to bring up sometime.

Interestingness

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(frozen comment) no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

(frozen comment) no subject