The Morality Of Saving People From Hell

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


How much will it really bother you to say "not intrusted"??? My hubby grew up a train wreck Morman, turned? ??? can't recall, turned Christian, anyways I remember a when we first started dating he mentioned something about my soul, and I not a believer laughed a bit, it depends whom you ask from. his point of veiw it was both ethical and moral- hes concerned. From my point it was a little sickening, adorable in a way. I have to say as a non-christain, preaching ect ect I've come to veiw religion more as a organization like wal-mart rather than moral/ethical and feel no ill will.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
This reality is Hell, and the world is what you make it. So many people want hell
so much they're creating it through silly religious beliefs told to them through
illusory centuries. This world is as close to hell as you'll ever get. What you
believe you will create for yourself.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




All you have to do is ask them to talk for an hour about both God and hell without once mentioning the Bible. They won't be able to do it.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by voiceoreason
anyone can attempt to save anyone from anything... the question is, how does the 'saved' view the 'savior' and vice versa.

think about it.


I think it gets down to how the saved and savior view the threat. We would likely all agree that a speeding car heading towards someone is a legitimate threat, and saving someone from collision is both ethical and moral.

"Hell" is not agreed to be a legitimate threat by everyone, since it's neither apparent nor detectable and has observable qualities identical to the non-existent. The savior must first convince the other to believe the threat even in the absence of evidence. Instilling a belief in someone to fear a threat that they have no good reason to fear is unethical and immoral. Additionally, there is no evidence that the method of "saving" someone has any efficacy either. To "save" that person from the unsubstantiated threat by offering the unsubstantiated cure is simply useless madness. The fervency of the savior may cause him to believe he is doing the right and caring thing, though when his beliefs are rooted in ignorance so then is the act of saving others from them. Creating in someone a false sense of security against a false threat is an immoral and unethical action, regardless of motives.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 07:02 AM
link   
Forcing someone to believe in a "belief" that has no factual basis is like forcing someone to believe in Santa Clause. People who are trying to convert people to their beliefs have never experienced death and the afterlife. So how can they know for certain that people who die without being converted to their beliefs will go to a place called hell?

If you believe that God gave you free will, surely he knows people will believe in all sorts of things. I believe people are here to find their own way. You may think you "saved" someone because of an earthly ritual, but it doesn't change the persons thoughts or actions. They can continue to do terrible things in life, but because of this "ritual" they won't have to pay for their sins?

I have Jehovah Witnesses coming to my house every summer to try to convert me. It's like answering a "courtesy phone call" you wish you never answered. I'm sure nobody likes being forced into buying something over the phone. It's a simple invasion of privacy. So why is it that people who believe in religion think it's anything different?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
There is nothing moral about trying to tell someone what to believe or to try and change what they believe.


This.

We are all here with virtually the same capacities to learn, grow and find our truth. It's an insult to me when people try to change what I believe because it's the same as saying that I don't have my stuff together enough to figure out what I believe JUST as everyone else does.

The moral thing to do is to live and let live.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
There is nothing moral about trying to tell someone what to believe or to try and change what they believe.


This.

We are all here with virtually the same capacities to learn, grow and find our truth. It's an insult to me when people try to change what I believe because it's the same as saying that I don't have my stuff together enough to figure out what I believe JUST as everyone else does.

The moral thing to do is to live and let live.


Well, most of the time, yes. But as it was pointed out, attempting to change another's beliefs which are harmful either to themselves or others could be considered more ethical than allowing the consequences of dangerous beliefs to manifest. Most moral people would, for example, attempt to thwart someone planning to act on a belief that prostitutes should be murdered.

But when we isolate the issue to matters of religious belief we know there's little more than unbacked claims to be sold on and conversion attempts are therefore frustrating to tolerate. Nobody likes it when they're trying to be sold a bill of goods.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
There is nothing moral about trying to tell someone what to believe or to try and change what they believe.
This is too absolute. We tell KKK members that they're wrong for their beliefs all the time, and never think about whether it is right or wrong for them to believe as they wish.
. I'm not saying that you are racist but dang it sure does sound like it...KKK my nuttts! and yes I'm black.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
But as it was pointed out, attempting to change another's beliefs which are harmful either to themselves or others could be considered more ethical than allowing the consequences of dangerous beliefs to manifest. Most moral people would, for example, attempt to thwart someone planning to act on a belief that prostitutes should be murdered.


Planning to act on a belief is ACTION, not a belief. The belief that prostitutes should be killed is not dangerous. I know it's splitting hairs, but I think it's important to stress that I'm talking about BELIEFS, not actions.

I'm a strong proponent of freedom. And freedom to believe is very important. Action is a different matter.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I don't reject god...I don't know god, or of a god. I do however openly and oftenly reject people proclaiming special knowledge without evidence.

If they are proclaiming themselves as my salvation, then that makes them the default voice of god, and frankly, I have found most voices of god (people trying to "save" me) to be a bunch of morons that cannot grasp basic science...if they can't understand elementary school academics, how good of a deity's voice can they possibly be? rejected is the best default answer.

I am very open to either a deity itself, or a representative with enough proof to back the claims try to explain to me what is what...but until then, I will continue to tell the pseudo-reps whom are mental drop outs to keep walking.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Planning to act on a belief is ACTION, not a belief. The belief that prostitutes should be killed is not dangerous. I know it's splitting hairs, but I think it's important to stress that I'm talking about BELIEFS, not actions.

I'm a strong proponent of freedom. And freedom to believe is very important. Action is a different matter.



That is an excellent observation. Could it not be said though that our beliefs ultimately inform our actions? Is it unethical to refute the belief of martyrdom, something which will inevitably lead to the weak minded or insane to act upon it? Could disputing the beliefs that post-death rewards await religiously-inspired suicide bombers have a net positive effect on society? And if so, does changing one's belief in such a thing constitute an immoral or unethical act?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   


Is the attempt to save others from Hell a moral action or is it an unethical action?


There is no black and white here.

A person who believes in hell may try anything to "save" someone.....from simply suggesting they attend their church once, all the way to a full-steam, hellfire and brimstone sermon in an embarrassing setting.

Personally, I get the feeling that we are already in Hell..aka Samsara.
If physical life isn't a trial, I don't know what is!

Beliefs are the problem sometime..which is why I (try to) stick to principles.

Should these "saviors" of the damned perhaps realize that IF there is a hell, then some folks are simply diving through hoops to get in? Just let 'em go, man! LoL

Anyway....
Self-reflection is both a blessing and a curse, isn't it?
Creation/Creator is allowing part of ourselves to experience a little "Godliness", and it's hard to handle!

Imagine the burden of being the sole universal consciousness!



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Could it not be said though that our beliefs ultimately inform our actions?


Of course our beliefs inform our actions. But not all of our beliefs RESULT in action. And there's a very real and clear line between the two. So, while I'm all for prosecuting actions, belief is the property of the believer and not anyone else's business.



Is it unethical to refute the belief of martyrdom, something which will inevitably lead to the weak minded or insane to act upon it? Could disputing the beliefs that post-death rewards await religiously-inspired suicide bombers have a net positive effect on society? And if so, does changing one's belief in such a thing constitute an immoral or unethical act?


People are going to believe what they believe. If it were POSSIBLE to convince the religious world to stop believing in fantasy, I would love that. But it's not possible to change people's beliefs. We can give them information or thoughts to ponder, but ultimately, they're going to believe what they believe.

Let me be clear. Any argument or discussion can involve the will to change someone's beliefs. I used to be against firearm ownership and after an in-depth discussion with my now-husband, my belief about it changed 180 degrees, because I had more information. I'm all for sharing information and ideas, but what is unethical is the mindset of "My beliefs are RIGHT and yours are WRONG and you will go to hell for your beliefs." It's a fear/pressure approach, and I think it's unethical. (I thought that was what the thread was about).



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Think about how lifeguards must sometimes club the person unconscious before they can be saved.

I wish they would leave children alone though.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
IMO ... I think attempting to change someone's beliefs is considered 'imposing' and imposition = negative.
Imposing our beliefs on someone will usually only evoke anger and distance, not inspire change.

We can bring the subject up and then take our cues. If a person wants to hear more, then they can, but if they don't want to hear it, then they shouldn't have to listen. What is the point of "preaching" if the information isn't going to be heard or well received? One could argue, "Well at least I did my part". That's true, but then, Congratulations! we've made a new enemy and angered someone ... and they didn't change.

Also, sometimes a person is actually open to listening, but the timing is off ... bad timing. They are just not in a place to listen with both ears.

So, I think it's probably best to talk to those whom you know will listen and who are your most likely audience, and at the right time. I don't think we're morally obligated to try to help or to change others who don't want our help, nor do they want to change. I do believe we are morally obligated to help those who want us to help them.

The truth is that some people simply cannot be helped -- they don't care or they just don't want to change for whatever reason. It' really not our job to try to change people ... but instead to share, teach, enlighten, inspire, support, love .. and so on ... not change.

As a side note -- I've noticed that people who try to transform or change others tend to have serious control issues.

If we are open to listening then fine, but if we're not and the person who is pushing information, theories, religious beliefs or whatever upon us, here's what I politely tell them.

"Please do not impose your beliefs on me".
Period. It shuts them right up.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
My question to you would be:
- how can you "save" someone by convincing them that they need to be saved from imaginary place?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm all for sharing information and ideas, but what is unethical is the mindset of "My beliefs are RIGHT and yours are WRONG and you will go to hell for your beliefs." It's a fear/pressure approach, and I think it's unethical. (I thought that was what the thread was about).



I agree. When we isolate things to religious beliefs we always find unethical and immoral aspects of conversion attempts, whether well intentioned or resulting from the above-mentioned ideological bigotry or fear tactics.

I was branching off to consider whether it was ever unethical or immoral to try to change someone's beliefs.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummerIs the attempt to save others from Hell a moral action or is it an unethical action?


You are confusing morals and ethics here. They are two totally different things. Morals come from some outside source, some 'other' telling you what is good and what is bad. Ethics come from within, and in your heart you know what is right. You don't need anyone telling you that which you already know at the deepest core of your being.

So is is moral to try to save someone? Yes, because that is what the belief system dictates. Is it Ethical to try to save someone from Hell? No, because each is on their own journey, and if that is the path they are choosing it is their natural right to pursue that experience.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Sarkron because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
It is moral and in fact Christians are commanded to share thee gospel. Hell isn't for an hour, day, or year: it is for eternity. If you buy into the philosophy of pluralism you might believe it's immoral to be a missionary, but that's just another vain philosophy.


hmmm..that might be one of the problems.. some people who are preaching aren't really doing it for the benefit of the others, but for what they think they gain out of it spiritually, because it was commanded in the bible..much as why the JVs do it.

Personally I think that if a christian really does care about the state of your soul.. they would be much wiser to pray in silence , and wait for the Holy Spirit to do the saving.

I think if people are really going to turn their hearts to a "real" living god, it would actually be the real living Holy Spirit that makes the conversion happen , in a very private way inside this persons mind and heart.

Saving is the work of God , if it is really necessary....not the work of humans.

In actuality there are some Christians who may actually do more harm then good, if they are trying to draw souls to Christ.

So in conclusion to the question, I would say, that yes, some sincerely care for others, and that is commendable, yet I recommend that at times maybe a different approach would be more fruitful.

Many are fooling themselves thinking they care, when it really is more about how they are appearing to other Christians, and other self motivated reasons.

That being said, Christians who preach for salvation of souls to me, are much less destructive than people who manipulate for the destruction of souls.

I guess what I'm saying is that if given the choice to go camping with a bunch of zealous Christians, or given the choice to go camping with a bunch of zealous humans who strongly believed there was no such thing as good and evil, and it was only how you perceive it, and this included their twisted ways of having "fun"... I would not hesitate to choose the Christians...and it would be what I would choose for my loved ones as well.

(that of course is only on the estimation that the zealous christians will practice the principles of the bible)








edit on 1-10-2011 by gabby2011 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I like to look at it this way.

Lets say your friend is going to get some groceries at the local supermarket. As he/she is going, you hear on the radio, " BREAKING NEWS: Wild bear breaks into local supermarket." Wouldn't you call your friend and tell him/her to not go there?

Same thing as Hell. You know whatever your friends are doing will lead them to Hell so wouldn't you want them to stop?





top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join