Atheism 2.0 (page 36)

NewChapter

So how does god view the deeds of those that do not put faith in the savior? Does he turn his wrath on them, or just let them slide by?

botchtowersociety

From Wikipedia, under the general headline Christianity

From Wikipedia, under the headline for Atnonement in Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity

The earliest explanation for how the atonement works is nowadays often called the moral influence theory. In this view the core of Christianity is positive moral change, and the purpose of everything Jesus did was to lead humans toward that moral change. He is understood to have accomplished this variously through his teachings, example, founding of the Church, and the inspiring power of his martyrdom and resurrection. This view was universally taught by the Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. [7] [8] [9] It also enjoyed popularity during the Middle Ages and is most often associated in that period with Peter Abelard . Since the Reformation it has been advocated by many theologians Immanuel Kant , Hastings Rashdall and Paul Tillich . It remains the most popular view of atonement among liberal Christians. It also forms the basis for Rene Girard ’s " mimetic desire " theory (not to be confused with meme theory).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_substitution

tec

So how does god view the deeds of those that do not put faith in the savior?

That would depend on the deeds, wouldn't it?

There are those who do as Christ taught but who might not know Him (or think that they know him). That does not mean that He does not know THEM. Also, those who do good to anyone who belongs to Him does not lose 'his reward'.

At the same time, there are some who believe in the savior, but their actions show that they are against Him. Those think they know Him; but Christ does not know THEM.

I don't think this is a 'mainstream' teaching though. I could be wrong. I don't really know what most sects teach in detail; other than the JW's.

Peace,

Tammy

botchtowersociety

So how does god view the deeds of those that do not put faith in the savior? Does he turn his wrath on them, or just let them slide by?

This is a Catholic view:

http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302fea3.asp

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html#Church

The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

The Orthodox share a similar view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodoxy_and_Judaism#Views_on_salvation_and_pluralism

I'd like to add, however, that I find the Orthodox views of the meaning of the Crucifixion and also Soteriology to be superior to those of my own Catholic religion, overall.

botchtowersociety

There are those who do as Christ taught but who might not know Him (or think that they know him). That does not mean that He does not know THEM.

Indeed.

NewChapter

I think it is the tone of the statement that is at issue, rather than the statement. Christianity DOES teach that we are all sinners. MOST churches teach that without salvation, the sinner will die/be punished---whatever. Most teach that good deeds are not enough. Perhaps they teach that their god appreciates good deeds from all, but only those saved by whatever method the lay out are the ones rewarded for those good deeds. And in that sense, the good deeds of the unsaved are like filthy rags. Thrown away with the person who did them.

And if they don't believe this way, it negates their entire theology. Why bother? If you don't need a savior, why bother building the church?

NC

botchtowersociety

Christianity DOES teach that we are all sinners.

Do you know of anyone who has always spoken and acted with moral perfection?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#Christianity

NewChapter

The word sin suggests that a wrong action offends a diety. Morality is defined differently in different cultures. There are common themes---murder, stealing, lying---but there are also many variations. So what is moral in one society, is not moral in another society. However when judging CHARACTER, one has to look at how an individual follows the rules of their own culture----not an outside culture. Christianity does not do this. It sets a standard and judges people in the far reaches of the world by that standard. So in a culture where premarital sex is approved and expected, they would judge that behavior as "immoral" or a "sin", regardless of what place those people are operating from. It is ridiculous.

Nobody is capable of performing up to expectations perfectly. But the idea that this imperfect performance offends a god is a Christian idea---and of course, an idea that other religions espouse. Yet I don't see these actions as sins. I see them for what they are----just our humaness. Christianity elevates such things to an entirely new level. Society has an interest in keeping certain behavior controlled, and should do such.

But the original statement still stands. Christianity teaches that we are all sinners in need of salvation. I disagree. We are all human with all the messiness. Our missteps offend our societies, not a diety. The more serious ones need to be controlled. Salvation is not something I ascribe to.

NC

botchtowersociety

But the idea that this imperfect performance offends a god is a Christian idea

It isn't so much that our bad actions offend God. It is that our bad actions separate us from God.

IMHO.

But if you do not believe in God to begin with, the discussion is moot.

NewChapter

The discussion---as it evolved----was that you denied that Christianity taught that we are all sinners, separated from a god. Which clearly you do believe. You said that mainstream churches did not teach such a thing---Catholic or Protestant. I stated that they did teach that. I don't think you liked the tone of the comment, but the basic statement is indeed true. Now you like to use the word "separate" and don't like the word "enemy". But the basic concept is the same. One does not separate from friends. And as far as good deeds being filthy rags---maybe you don't like the way it was said---but again, a true concept. Christianity teaches that if one is not reconciled, through Jesus, to a punishing god, they are cast away---much like filthy rags.

And it's not only bad actions that Christians teach separate a person from that god. Neutral actions, good actions, none of it really matters if a person doesn't subscribe to the idea of a savior. So back to the basic idea of the comment----sinners all----and to avoid being cast away like filthy rags they must perform something----confession, sacraments, born again---whatever. I am just challenging your challenge. It's a thread on Atheism. I am an Atheist. If you think discussion is moot, why did you engage me?

NC

Atheism 2.0

Share this