Shake

Ahh, Magus. Hadn't seen you around in a while.

I've underlined a weakness in your response. There's a difference. I know the US government exists, and I know that if I break a US law, I can expect to face punishment. I don't know (and I posit that neither does anyone) that God exists, and I haven't seen any punishment (from Him anyway) for sinning, except in cases where it violates secular human laws too (and not always there).

The point is that there is not a shred of evidence of your god, so I don't believe in him and your concept of sin means absolutely nothing to me. So, to say I'm a sinner has no meaning, since there is no such thing as sin either.

andy_d

Hey, it's not just atheists and agnostics that sin is an irrelevant concept for. There's whole religions that don't recognise the concept, either.

It's an Abrahamic theological construction, whereas the rule of law is common to the whole of civilisation.

the_cave

First of all, there are Christians (mostly liberal Protestants) who suggest or even indeed believe that one can be justified, "saved", what have you--i.e. gain eternal life in heaven--without being a Christian. That is, one may attain a virtuous life even outside Christianity.

Secondly, even, for example, the Catholic Church, has declared that "invincible ignorance" may make it possible (without stating whether this is definitely the case) for someone to achieve salvation "outside the Church". In other words, if one were ignorant of the truths of Christianity, one could still possibly attain salvation in light of a striving for a virtuous life.

The question is more controversial for those who live within a supposedly Christian society, yet who are nevertheless not convinced of Christian claims. Could they be saved, if they nevertheless struggled to live a virtuous life?

There's really no consensus on the issue, so it's unfair to label all Christians as exclusive believers--that is, believers who think only a clear and direct affirmation of faith in the salvific powers of Jesus can obtain salvation. Sure, some are--and it's important to note that, for example, the Catholic Church remains pretty stern about what the expectations are...nevertheless, there is some room for argument, that someone who is simply unable to honestly and sincerely accept the claims of Christianity in good faith, may nevertheless possibly achieve salvation, through their longing for justice and virtue. In the end, no Christian knows whether someone else is saved or not. All they're called to do is to preach the gospel. And encouraging others to live good lives is a part of that gospel.

And I guess you think this is bad? Confused.

No, not explicitly, but it's only literalist fundamentalists who only base their doctrine on what's written in the Bible. Sure, there are some wonky passages about hardening Pharaoh's heart, for example, but only a literalist would be troubled by such passages...

Biff, you're really unnerving me...it's odd trying to argue with your position when you don't actually believe in it...

It all depends on whether you think the choice to believe is a work or not. At this point it really just gets kind of metaphorical...the point is, humankind always has the choice to do good or evil (even atheists!) But these choices are affected by the context and environment. Let's say you win $100 dollars in the lottery, and you can choose to either spend it on crack or you can donate it to the orphanage. So of course you give it to the orphanage...now you freely of your own volition gave that money away--but if you hadn't won the lottery, you wouldn't have had the money to begin with. So who's responsible for the donation--the State Lottery, or you? Don't you see how there's responsibility on both sides, of different sorts?

Actually, the best way to save a drowning person isn't to just swim up to them & grab them...best to throw a flotation device first, or, if you don't have one, swim up to them, calm them down, and try to get them to swim towards you. Just grabbing them often merely gives them the opportunity to drag you down with them. True lifesaving facts...

Besides, this is the wrong metaphor. As I see it, Christianity more or less makes the claim that before the gospel of salvation, humans didn't even realize they were drowning--and certainly wouldn't have believed that the lifeboat would have taken them any place safe, even if there had been one...or else, they would simply have refused the assistance the lifeguard tried to give them--they would have swum further out into deeper waters...I know it sounds ridiculous, but this is your metaphor, not mine

This is just silly, Biff, sorry. Man, those Protestants really did a number on you before you became an atheist, didn't they? Fine, call it "works" if you want. But someone who at least gave me the chance to saved from some sort of disaster I'm quite happy to call a "savior", even if they weren't dragging me out with their bare hands. To ignore their role in my rescue is just a game of semantics.

Milton

Wrong.

Wrong.

That depends.

What "moral" standard are you using? The one proposed by Christianity, or the one you create?

you would be required to have never heard the Gospel, never had a real chance to study it. if this is not the reason why you don't believe (meaning, you have heard and studied it), then you cannot be saved.

Philosoft

I think you guys are missing the point of the OP. If all the guidelines for moral behavior are set forth in the Bible, then it is a possible state-of-affairs that some person behaves perfectly morally throughout her life. So, given 30-odd billion or so who have lived and died since the death of Jesus, the odds that at least one of those was a perfectly moral person are pretty darn good.

I think it's this realization that makes original sin doctrinally necessary. Apparently, from what I deduced above, a perfectly sin-free atheist goes to heaven. But, since that's nearly unthinkable, there must be something inherent to each person that is sinful in and of itself. Hence, original sin.

Biff the unclean

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Ahh, now that's Roman Catholicism, where god judges you on you behavior.
-----

And I guess you think this is bad? Confused.
No I consider it quite preferable to the Prod version, as it shows at least some sense of social responsibility.

No, not explicitly, but it's only literalist fundamentalists who only base their doctrine on what's written in the Bible. Sure, there are some wonky passages about hardening Pharaoh's heart, for example, but only a literalist would be troubled by such passages...
There's a lot more than that. There is god forbidding Adam & Eve from gaining free will There are The Tower of Babel, the flood, and a whole shit load of "laws" meant to supercede "free will"

Biff, you're really unnerving me...it's odd trying to argue with your position when you don't actually believe in it...
There's no need for me to believe it. Only for me to be able to read English and recognize a contradiction when I see one.

It all depends on whether you think the choice to believe is a work or not.
"Works" means by your own actions. If you are the one who is doing the choosing then the choice is your own action.
At this point it really just gets kind of metaphorical...the point is, humankind always has the choice to do good or evil (even atheists!)
The natural state one would expect to find in a world where no god existed. If you'll look in the bible you'll find that that is not the condition in it's fictional world.
So who's responsible for the donation--the State Lottery, or you? Don't you see how there's responsibility on both sides, of different sorts?
While the State may have set the wheels in motion, they gave the money to you and not the orphanage. The giving of the money was your work and yours alone.

As I see it, Christianity more or less makes the claim that before the gospel of salvation, humans didn't even realize they were drowning--and certainly wouldn't have believed that the lifeboat would have taken them any place safe, even if there had been one...or else, they would simply have refused the assistance the lifeguard tried to give them--they would have swum further out into deeper waters...I know it sounds ridiculous, but this is your metaphor, not mine
Interesting, don't you think, that no one knew they needed to be "saved" before the very person who was selling "saving" told them? That's what Madison Avenue does these days.

This is just silly, Biff, sorry. Man, those Protestants really did a number on you before you became an atheist, didn't they?
I'm a recovered Irish Roman Catholic thank you.
When you become an Atheist Christians don't magically disappear I'm sorry to say. In fact many of them have a compulsion to tell you ad nauseam what they believe. The fact that what you might believe is different from what other Christians believe is hardly surprising. You all have a different spin because, after all, you are all making it up as you go along.

Fine, call it "works" if you want. But someone who at least gave me the chance to saved from some sort of disaster I'm quite happy to call a "savior", even if they weren't dragging me out with their bare hands. To ignore their role in my rescue is just a game of semantics.
And to ignore the fact that there is nothing to save you from is lunacy. You aren't buried, you aren't a sinner, you aren't being rescued by anyone. You don't need to be rescued, you're fine.