A real question - alternative

[usmhot]

In Zeno's thread 'A real question' he asks

[ QUOTE ]
For another take on this, change the above parameter to: if you press the button all probability of God's existence, however small or large that may be (up to 100% if you are a firm theist), vanishes. There is no possibility of a God, now - forever. Do you press the button?


[/ QUOTE ]

Which made me think of a related question ...

If you could find out with 100% certainty that God (of the Christian faith) exists, but that in being given that 100% proof you had to accept all of Christ's religious teachings and completely serve Him, would you want to find out?

Remember, if you are going to completely serve Christ, you have to devote your whole life to others - helping the poor and sick and spreading his teachings.

Absolutely. If I were 100% sure, there would be no question that I would dedicate my life to serving God. If I were 50% sure, I'd do it.

First, the god that's described in the New Testament is a benevolent, loving god. It's not like you're serving a god that is actively causing human suffering, like Satan or Moloch. Not even one that's above humans and disinterested in their affairs. Serving the Christian god through helping the poor (as opposed to enforcing church doctrine or "curing" homosexuals) fits with the moral code of just about every religious and nonreligious doctrines of morality. Okay, maybe not Ayn Rand's, but that bitch can go [censored] herself.

Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, it makes total sense to serve whatever god you're 100% sure of. And it's not even close. The difference between eternal salvation and damnation is much greater than that between driving a Lexus and driving a Geo Metro.

/agnostic

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. If I were 100% sure, there would be no question that I would dedicate my life to serving God. If I were 50% sure, I'd do it.

First, the god that's described in the New Testament is a benevolent, loving god. It's not like you're serving a god that is actively causing human suffering, like Satan or Moloch. Not even one that's above humans and disinterested in their affairs. Serving the Christian god through helping the poor (as opposed to enforcing church doctrine or "curing" homosexuals) fits with the moral code of just about every religious and nonreligious doctrines of morality. Okay, maybe not Ayn Rand's, but that bitch can go [censored] herself.

Even from a purely self-interested viewpoint, it makes total sense to serve whatever god you're 100% sure of. And it's not even close. The difference between eternal salvation and damnation is much greater than that between driving a Lexus and driving a Geo Metro.

/agnostic

[/ QUOTE ]
This is obviously the clear answer. Maybe the real question should be how sure do you have to be of the existence of God to devote your life like this? AvivaSimplex says 50% would do it for him. What would it be for you?

[BradyC]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, if you are going to completely serve Christ, you have to devote your whole life to others - helping the poor and sick and spreading his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

You act as if this is a downside. From the Christian perspective, serving others brings great joy.

[usmhot]

For me its a lot more difficult than that.

I agree with Aviva that the God of the New Testament is a good and benevolent God and one who's teachings I would admire.

But, the problem is, to follow Christ completely you basically have to submit your whole existence to his path. For example, I have one child, a daughter, and nothing brings me greater joy than to be with her and see her happy. And, while this in itself is a joy to the Christian God, I would, strictly speaking, have to give that up and devote my whole time to alleviating poverty and suffering. I would have no time to have a beer with some friends, read a good book (as opposed to THE good book [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]), see a good movie, play some poker online. Now, I know that I could still live the life I lead and the Christian God (probably) would welcome me into heaven. BUT a good and devout Christian, in all conscience, could not sit idly by with all of the suffering in the world.
Some people can devote their whole lives to helping others - Mother Theresa being one of the most notable examples.

On balance I think my answer would be that I would do it, but I'd be very aware of what I was giving up. And, it'd have to be 100% proof.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot --

But, the problem is, to follow Christ completely you basically have to submit your whole existence to his path. For example, I have one child, a daughter, and nothing brings me greater joy than to be with her and see her happy. And, while this in itself is a joy to the Christian God, I would, strictly speaking, have to give that up and devote my whole time to alleviating poverty and suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure that devotion to Christ implies a life like Mother Theresa. Remember when the woman put expensive oils on the feet of Jesus and someone complained that the oil could have been sold and the money used to feed the poor. Jesus said something like, you will always have the poor but you won't always have me. It might be like that in your example. Your daughter is like the feet of Jesus. Besides, would it be Christian Devotion to deny her what she needs in a father?

I think the insistence on this extreme idea of Christian devotion was advocated by some in the early church, seriously debated, and finally found to be inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. Remember how Jesus was accused of drunkeness and glutonny because he ate and drank with people like a normal joe? In fact, Jesus even ate and drank with "sinners". Jesus was concerned with what's in the heart and the fruits that flow from it. But a life's vocation of love does not necessarily mean making a big show of it. A kind word, a friendly smile, a tolerant attitude, an empathetic response, paying the bills, raising good kids, maybe even having some beers with the guys. Maybe we can do more but we can't do everything. We each have our own mission. The mission of Jesus was to bring the message of the kingdom of heaven amongst us. But he lived life fully while he was doing it.

PairTheBoard

[usmhot]

Very good point.

But then, didn't Jesus teach that "whatsover you do unto the least of God's children, so you do unto me"?
And, didn't he also teach (through the parable of the good samaritan) that you must not refuse to help where help is needed?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot--
But then, didn't Jesus teach that "whatsover you do unto the least of God's children, so you do unto me"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. What do you think that implies?

[ QUOTE ]
usmhot --
And, didn't he also teach (through the parable of the good samaritan) that you must not refuse to help where help is needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the parable was saying that the samaritan who was considered not one of god's people was really more in tune with god when he stopped and helped, than the so called people of god who did not.

In neither of these do I see Jesus calling us to go out as individuals and try to help every single person on the planet while leaving our wives and families to shift for themselves. Remember that you are also one of the "least of god's children". You deserve to be cared for as well. The weak old man you are going to become also deserves to be cared for.

The verse that troubles people with your concern the most is usually the one where Jesus tells the rich man to sell all his belongings, give the money to the poor, and follow Jesus. I would not be too quick in assuming complete understanding of that verse. Like a lot a verses in the bible, it's figurative meaning may be more truthful than it's literal appearance.

PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

I have never in my life seen so many misconceptions about Christianity than from this forum.

Honestly, any non-Christians who say they don't believe in it should really ask themselves if they know what *it* is first, and not Rusell or anyone else's version of it.

God is the ultimate realist, a monastic/mother teresea life is not required per se.

God wants your soul, that is it.

What you do on earth without giving him your soul means [censored]. (ephesians - all works are as filthy rags)

If you do good things you can get 1-5 crowns (I won't go into it here for those that don't know, the Bible is your friend and online) as testament to your deeds.

But anyway, the way I understand Christianity is, underneath it all is the simple premise that:

You are [censored].

But ... I will help you.

Take my hand or slap it away, the choice is yours.

But ... the choice is eternal.

No, things are this way. Don't ask why, I'm God, where were you when the world was made?

I'm offering to help you out because I love you, that's all you need to know, call it 'faith'.

Accept or reject, choice is yours, either way I'm fine, its your decision.

That being said, believing and accepting seems sufficent for the bare minimum if you genuinely give your life and soul to Christ.

Christians often debate over 'once saved, always saved' - ie- David Sklansky (for example) has a near death experience, gives his life to Christ, but a few days later rejects it and says he is an atheist.

In God's eyes is Sklansky saved because he accepted at one point in time and truly mean't it then, or is there a 'deal-breaker' other than the Mark of the Beast?

I've encountered many people who hold the view that 'once saved, always saved', and there seem to be many verses that support it, but who knows.

Cheers,
SDM

[chezlaw]

So god made me a reasonaing creature unable to believe without understanding. He also made be [censured] and will save me if I have the faith he know I cannot have.

So I'm dammed. Thanks a lot god.

You worship this monster?

chez