A question for Christians.

[ragarth]

Hello! I have a question for the Christians among us to help me get a better understanding of the underpinning of religious morality.

Three people die and stand before the pearly gates. One is a Christian, he lived a moral life, helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, and acted to the betterment of all those around him. His motivation was a genuine concern for his fellow man. Another is Christian as well who lived a moral life, he helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, and acted to the betterment of all those around him. His motivation was a fear of punishment in the afterlife, who's to say if he wouldn't have been a good Christian had he never been motivated by fear. The final person is not a Christian, he's an atheist who lived a moral life. He helped old ladies across the street, gave to charity, and acted to the betterment of all those around him. His motivation was a genuine concern for his fellow man, since being an atheist he didn't believe in an omniscient watcher.

What's the fate of these three men, and why? Outwardly we can assume they performed actions that fit the teachings of Christ. Their key differences is that two were Christian while one is atheist and denied God's existence, and that two acted out of a genuine love and care for humanity while one acted out of fear of retribution.

waiver: Technically there should be a 4th, an atheist who acted out of fear of repercussion, but I can't think of a fear motivating source that would cause an atheist to act morally at all times.

[Asmodean]

What's the fate of these three men, and why? Outwardly we can assume they performed actions that fit the teachings of Christ. Their key differences is that two were Christian while one is atheist and denied God's existence, and that two acted out of a genuine love and care for humanity while one acted out of fear of retribution.

I'm not really qualified to answer this question but I don't think your deeds are what gets you past the pearly gates and into His Omniness' domain - it's all about whether or not you kissed His Omniness' @ss enough. Thus, the Xians pass, the atheist burns.

[Tom62]

Maybe you should have added Christian number 3, who was a serial killer and found Jesus just before he died.

[ragarth]

I'm not really qualified to answer this question but I don't think your deeds are what gets you past the pearly gates and into His Omniness' domain - it's all about whether or not you kissed His Omniness' @ss enough. Thus, the Xians pass, the atheist burns.

This is why I phrased this question specifically to Christians. As an Atheist it's difficult for me to look into the religious mind and understand how they interpret the nature of their morality. It's clear you have the same problem, let a Christian answer, you'll learn as much from their reply as I will, it seems.

Maybe you should have added Christian number 3, who was a serial killer and found Jesus just before he died.

That would have been fruitless because it's assumed death bed conversions are fruitless to our hypothetical God, at least that's my assumption. It's safe to say given biblical text that if a person's actions show them to be a horrible person but believe in god they still won't get into heaven. Another answer to this would be that God knows the truth of one's heart and if they truly repent, which is a valid potential answer.

[McQ]

Ragarth, different christians will give you different answers. Most protestant denominations will say the only thing that matters, and what is the ACTUAL definition of a christian is, "anyone who accepts jesus christ as personal lord and savior". That goes into more detail as to how you do that and what is involved, but it wouldn't matter about the acts that person did or why he did them. Only the accepting jesus part matters.

The holy spirit will then guide that new christian into a life led by jesus' examples. i.e. living a good life, giving to charity, helping those in need, etc.

Catholics will tell you something different. Mormons will tell you something different (yes, I know most other christians don't consider mormons christians). And it goes.

But the bottom line for most is not the acts or the way a "christian" lives, but the original acceptance of jesus as lord.

I've been both a roman catholic and a baptist. I have to say that both are full of it, and so was I when I bought into their beliefs, long ago.

[brekfustuvluzerz]

when i was a believer, i would have said caring christian gets in, atheist burns, and fearful selfish christian was never actually saved and was lying to himself and everyone around him thus spent his whole life waking up early on sundays only to end up in hell.

[wheels5894]

I rather think this is a deeper question than it looks because it tackles; -

1. Just what different churches teach about the faith

and

2. What god is supposed to be like.

in reverse order, the god of the bible seems to be a god that requires much - worship obedience of his chosen leaders and so on. In a way, this is more demanding than the Greek and Roman gods for whom sacrifice was sufficient. The Christian take on this, mainly Paul actually, pushes humans down to a place from which they can't escape without god to do it but the escape has strings which seem quite odd - belief in Jesus.

I find this odd as mere acceptance of Jesus would seem very little compared with following his teaching and living a moral life yet this is just which the Reformed churches teach. Of course, the Catholic ideas, which seem to by based on trying to do more good and than bad, have problems too. However I find the oddest thing is the concept that one can live a dreadful life or murdering, stealing and so on and yet on one's deathbed accept Jesus and heaven is yours. It hardly makes sense. If this god can accept the worst in society on the mere acceptance of Jesus moments before death, why would he not accept moral and caring atheists who have really made a difference in society? It seems to me that the society that Christianity would have might well be a depraved one where individuals have only to be baptised when old or dying. I'm not sure I like that.

So, why cannot the churches agree on some of the basics like one's final destination? They all have the same text to read and yet some up with different answers. I would suggest that this is a question of what suits the hierarchy (literally rule of priests) in recruiting paying members of their churches. Whatever the Roman Church has said, the reformed churches have something different, maybe easier, to help them recruit.Yes, I know there were and are deep theological debates on these topics but what is the reason that these are done but to bring new members in and retain old ones? Churches are no different from tennis clubs - they have to get members and keep them to pay the bills and the clergy.