The Morality Of Saving People From Hell

reply to post by traditionaldrummer and to post by captaintyinknots
Once a person makes it clear they are uninterested, and don't want to hear what you want to tell them... the moral and humane thing to do in this case would be to grin and bear it. It probably hurts to see someone you care about "fall through the cracks" but these cracks are subjective to personal preferences and what would be bad and hell for one person may be heaven and holy for another.
It is nice and thoughtful the first time, but subsequent attempts at converting someone is just plain stupid. People will believe what they want to believe and you can't do a damn thing about it. They can give their two cents to you for your consideration but they can't make you believe or change your mind. No one has the power to control you unless you give it to them. If they don't want to give you that power, that's their choice and your job is over... Shut up, go home and make yourself a gin&coke.

reply to post by TravisT

That was the point. They don't push their beliefs on others, until they are forced to by some religious fanatic. And are you really trying to play the victim, by saying how crazy it is for someone to retaliate their beliefs, when they are put into question first?

Are you so sure that is always the case?

I think there are some who DO push their beliefs on others, without ever being provoked into doing so..but merely cause they know someone is Christian, and wish to demean them for it.

You have your view of what "they" do, and I have seen differently.

Originally posted by trailertrash
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.

Considering that I've had hours of talk on this subject where heaven and hell NEVER comes up, I know it can be done. People resent the carrot and stick method, so I don't always get into that.

BUT: the moment you say "Don't think of White fluffy bunnies!" what happens? You think of White bunnies. In stating to a Christian to "not say Heaven or Hell", even if they weren't going to go there, it makes it hard not to. So, nothing surprising. you're psychologically setting them up for failure.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
"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.

The thing is that there are plenty things in this universe that people have nothing more than what they are taught about it to go on.

Physical things, like how a star works--most people don't know the data that backs up why we believe the fact that our Sun is hydrogen filled sun--and that Iron cores kill suns. The problem is that some people do have a problem with the model we use lacking enough Iron in the sun for what they believe is actually there: Here, and not by any means ONLY.

Yes, this is much harder to translate into a spiritual realm issue. To get to the point of being able to derive a literal hell from actual data is darn near impossible, from what I understand. There's a lot of conventional beliefs to overcome with so many before you even get to it, which includes what is tested fact from the Bible, and what exactly a Soul is. Most people are swayed by far less, but to really combat your point is probably a class course that takes too darn long. For those in your position of beliefs, most will have to walk away because your position is just shy of running them out of town.

Originally posted by RedRebel5

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.

Well, I'm white (God only knows what my husband is), and I'd like to put the KKK to rest altogether. That requires education. If I'm to let their beliefs stand, then I cannot educate. And no, I will never seek these people out. They were chosen for the sole purpose of finding a group that is not necessarily religions, that is hateful, that is not politically motivated, that the overwhelming majority could see as having absolutely wrong opinions about reality. Since there is nothing right about the KKK, they make a perfect point.

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLyImagine the burden of being the sole universal consciousness!

I do, occasionally. I would not be as benevolent as a God who allows the Evil to live and maybe one day change. And it's not about being intolerant or tolerant, it's just there's 7 Billion of us now, and there are times when enough is enough. Not fun.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I don't see the point in ,mocking Christians with hatred, and there does seem to be a trend towards that type of behavior.

Though I'm not necessarily defending mockery, there are lots of reasons people do it.

I think the case made against atheists are far overblown. There is a trend in society to rarely, if ever, discuss religion (and politics for that matter). Since we've isolated our beliefs and discouraged discussion about them as a matter of tradition, when one encounters someone with an opposing viewpoint it can be extremely uncomfortable defending your position. Often they may point out that one is on indefensible ground. The frustrations that come from normal discussion tend to be described as atheists 'ramming it down throats'.

I say we just talk about it more - calmly and without mockery - and see if our beliefs stand up.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


No human being can 'convert' someone to believe life and death beyond what we see other than what they were born believing. And those who understand the seriousness of eternity, try to warn those who are in deception, darkness, or those who are asleep whatever it may be. Those feel that its our job to help and try save those that are on the path to eternal destruction. But we must remember, that we cannot change a person who has made that choice, so trying to shove down more things and different ways to compell them to change will not work. Being persistent in this circumstance, will never change their mind.

The Set Apart spirit is what compells us to change, and to be better and to follow the truth, the light and life. Those who are part of the chosen, become stronger in what they affirm. And the latter, become more resistant to those who are of the light. But we must understand, that our beginnings were at the foundations of the earth, and when the book of life was written. We were made spiritual beings at the foundations and those that were repelled by the light, were not written in the book of life. We now are just learning and growing to understand why we are the way we are, and looking for others who believe in the same thing.

So really the morality of trying to save someone from eternal pain and torture and torment, is really our beings trying to warn those out there that are searching for the truth, who want to escape that destination of eternal pain. Those who understand the ramifications of eternity, know that its better for our sake and to find those who understand the importance and seriousness of this life were in, to continue in the right path and stay in the light and truth.

And those who do not care, or dont understand the seriousness of eternity and the fate of their soul, will not understand no matter how much the people of the light try to tell them, teach them or persuade them to choose otherwise.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
The thing is that there are plenty things in this universe that people have nothing more than what they are taught about it to go on.

Physical things, like how a star works--most people don't know the data that backs up why we believe the fact that our Sun is hydrogen filled sun--and that Iron cores kill suns. The problem is that some people do have a problem with the model we use lacking enough Iron in the sun for what they believe is actually there: Here, and not by any means ONLY.

Yes, this is much harder to translate into a spiritual realm issue. To get to the point of being able to derive a literal hell from actual data is darn near impossible, from what I understand. There's a lot of conventional beliefs to overcome with so many before you even get to it, which includes what is tested fact from the Bible, and what exactly a Soul is. Most people are swayed by far less, but to really combat your point is probably a class course that takes too darn long. For those in your position of beliefs, most will have to walk away because your position is just shy of running them out of town.

Except that we all agree that the star is real but we do not all agree that Hell is real. The unexplained phenomena of objects that do exist have nothing to do with it. What matters is demonstrating the existence of Hell. There is no reason to assume any claims about Hell are valid until this happens.

Originally posted by Jana12We 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.
(...)
"Please do not impose your beliefs on me".
Period. It shuts them right up.

Just a note. There's people who socialise with me, who want to be around me ought to know how I think in any given situation. Sometimes, knowing how I'm going to react is necessary in a relationship, so religious conversations are required. And then the twit of a friend states "Please do not impose your beliefs on me.". Then I have to educated them right then and there that it has nothing to do with imposition at that moment...this gets to be a real mess. A really few times it's boiled down to a "You know what I am. If you don't like it, then don't associate with me. Simply put, we don't have to be in each other's lives. You can go your way free of me and what I think." I haven't lost anyone yet--but that's because I'm not giving them a reason to, in spite of their "Back Off!" Complicated for no good reason.

Originally posted by Sarkron

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)

Some philosophers call ethics the "science of morality".

Wiki AKA: Ethics are the logic or language of Morality.

Seiously, just because you and others see the two as separate, the doesn't mean that all do.

Originally posted by gabby2011
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.

Some people do it in lieu of other things required, that are directly labelled as spiritual growth--thing is what personal growth comes from converting others, especially by the methods in practice? They send these kids out there who honestly have not studied beyond what they've been told, then feed them to the lions Christian-haters, to convert them by whatever means necessary?

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

Absolutely. Job's a whole book on what it looks like to feed someone the "you're going to hell" spiel, and what it does to the person who's attacked.

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)

I don't have to agree with any given Christian out there, but having a similar code of ethics helps in arguments. I've noticed that even when we are nearly violently opposed, we're usually not name-calling, which makes it easier to discuss the argument.

I've often wondered about victim less crime, if Christians are so sure your going to be punished in hell, why not save all the capitol and let them burn?

There's a huge difference between converting someone for their sake versus for one's own sake. I am a Mormon, and growing up in California, the concept of being a missionary was understood and taught as:
-Being a good, reliable friend, coworker and neighbor to all around you.
-Living the principles you espouse openly and humbly.
-Sharing "religion" openly, as invited, in whatever measure was welcomed.

(I moved to Idaho, and sadly the culture here has a very "all-or-nothing" mentality.)

What that all boils down to is being a missionary isn't about shoving books and pamphlets in peoples' faces, or telling them they are damned to hell blah blah blah.

Being a good missionary is being a good example; By that example others will be curious about what makes you seem happy and content in this insane world. When others express this curiosity, sharing principles is welcome, whether or not they are accepted.

If I share one simple thing...let's say tithing, with a friend. I explain how by giving 10% of what I have to others, I gain compassion and an awareness that others are in need. Perhaps the giving of 10% causes me to be more careful with my remaining 90%, which helps me financially in the long run. I share things because I believe in them, because I know from personal experience that they bring good into my life. I share because I love my neighbor, and want him to have what I have.

This person (to whom I shared) takes this one principle to heart, and increases their charitable contributions, and they see the same blessings arise from a small financial sacrifice. They aren't "converted" or "saved", but they are living one step closer to it.

Perhaps a month, or year, or 10 years later the same person has other questions. Maybe the questions are for me, perhaps they are for another influential person in their life. Perhaps the answers they receive will save them, or convert them. Perhaps those answers simply help them to live one more step closer.

When one is interested in saving souls for the souls' sake, every positive interaction is missionary work, everything moving forward is a win. It's not an all or nothing proposition. It's only all or nothing when the "converter" is interested in their own pride.

Originally posted by flyingfish
I've often wondered about victim less crime, if Christians are so sure your going to be punished in hell, why not save all the capitol and let them burn?

Because they are commanded by their God to "save" the souls of those who are otherwise damned?

Originally posted by blamethegreysThey aren't "converted" or "saved", but they are living one step closer to it.

Well, you've planted a seed within their mind of possibility, but it ultimately that persons wish/choice to let that seed grow.
That depends all on their thirst for wanting to know more about what you believe in.

Originally posted by blamethegreysIt's only all or nothing when the "converter" is interested in their own pride.

Bingo.
Pride.
The whole "I am holy." "I am holier than thou." This is why half the things you say and half the people you try to talk with are not even half listening to you because of their animosity of being told what to do by someone who thinks they are better than them. I agree, there's a huge difference here. I've heard it, experienced it and unfortunately have fallen prey to it with my own verbiage.

Originally posted by xxcalbier
Streets of gold .Eternal life even in death ,all knowledge known . singing prases for a billion billion years .
no sickness young forever ,No children no old people .
Sounding good yet? ok well no beer no football no grass no trees and again singing for ever.
sounding even better? no? well how about teh gold part i am sue you love gold .
gold streets well two things ,One your DEAD it has no value two being the streets are paved with it kind like asphalt hu? how much of that do you have in your pocket?
A blade of grass is what will be worth well your dead what is the point to money?
So this is what you desire after you die hu? for a trillion years at that ?
sounding good yet? no thanks I dont care if heaven is real or not hanging around as a ghost for a 100 years maybe . travel the unvirse to see for my self if theres life ok but even that after a billion years would be worn out .
heck im olny 45 now and spend days at a time board to tears immang 45 million years of the same thing day after day.

That's a lot of the imagery of a somewhat coded book, there' s no sure way of concluding that it will definitely look like this. Also, Christ's return after death is recorded to him being FLESH and BLOOD. He had a hole in his side, and nail marks, yet was eating and drinking with no apparent problems. So, saying we won't have a body, or even a new body (like most believe), is fairly dicey. Also, there's just as much said about the Earth still being here after it's destruction, as there is of it's obliteration. And the implications of ETERNAL are not necessarily of feeling every single second of that time, but maybe being more like all points in time are now, or time not existing. So, while the things you are rejecting, I can understand, there's little to ensure that this is all it will be like.

nope no thanks I would rather be none existence . O btw as for your hell no different from heaven you know.

C.S. Lewis agrees with you, as do a lot of Christians.

after all I have been in pain after a wile it just gets to the point were you dont even notice it.
o and dont say I have never been in real pain my missing right eye says other wise

Originally posted by gabby2011 Yet there are atheists who calmly debate how they view truth, and I think that is healthy and fine.

These are my favourites. They are so overly eager to talk that they can consume your life.

Originally posted by TravisT]I've never met or seen an atheist try to convert people into believing in nothing.

I have.

I've never seen or heard of an atheist going door to door trying to covert believers into atheism.

Not door to door in a neighborhod, but I've seen them come into uninvited conversations, all the time.

I've never seen or heard of an atheist shouting about their beliefs on the side of the road.

I have.

I've never seen a sign that's read "honk if you believe in nothing".

That's because no one has made it yet: Other Atheist Bumper Stickers

Yes, I've heard debates about atheism, but only after believers tried to convert or talk about their beliefs to them.

I've had Atheists butt into conversations that didn't even concern them, to debate 1 single religious reference brought up.

The thing is that it takes all types.

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by gabby2011

They may not go door to door, but they are in colleges..in schools..etc.., like someone said earlier.

That was the point. They don't push their beliefs on others, until they are forced to by some religious fanatic. And are you really trying to play the victim, by saying how crazy it is for someone to retaliate their beliefs, when they are put into question first?

In a classroom situation, most of the time, the issue is brought up by the non-Christian teacher. I mean, even in classes where I was not predisposed to talking about religion, I've had it thrusted at me. And I went to a conservative hometown University, where this stuff is less prevalent.

Originally posted by ObservorWhat hurts are not the proclamations themselves, but the attitude associated with the proclamations.

Amen.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
The thing is that there are plenty things in this universe that people have nothing more than what they are taught about it to go on.

Physical things, like how a star works--most people don't know the data that backs up why we believe the fact that our Sun is hydrogen filled sun--and that Iron cores kill suns. The problem is that some people do have a problem with the model we use lacking enough Iron in the sun for what they believe is actually there: Here, and not by any means ONLY.

Yes, this is much harder to translate into a spiritual realm issue. To get to the point of being able to derive a literal hell from actual data is darn near impossible, from what I understand. There's a lot of conventional beliefs to overcome with so many before you even get to it, which includes what is tested fact from the Bible, and what exactly a Soul is. Most people are swayed by far less, but to really combat your point is probably a class course that takes too darn long. For those in your position of beliefs, most will have to walk away because your position is just shy of running them out of town.

Except that we all agree that the star is real but we do not all agree that Hell is real. The unexplained phenomena of objects that do exist have nothing to do with it. What matters is demonstrating the existence of Hell. There is no reason to assume any claims about Hell are valid until this happens.

The point I was referencing is that too much Iron in the core makes it go BOOM, by most models. I was pointing out the differences in the fictions and facts of our star. heaven or hell is but a component of a much bigger argument, some of which is physical like a star.

Originally posted by flyingfish
I've often wondered about victim less crime, if Christians are so sure your going to be punished in hell, why not save all the capitol and let them burn?

Because we're held accountable for our motivations, not just our actions.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are those people in your life who try to convert you to save you from Hell moral and correct in their actions?

If one sincerely believes in Hell and cares about you enough to try to save you from it, they must be a moral and caring person acting in the right, otherwise to let you perish would make them an amoral sociopath.

However, the more someone tries to save you, the more of an undesirable creep they are perceived to be. Religious conversion is often unwanted.

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

is it moral to try to share a mental disease? I would say "no".
this has nothing to do with morality, in my opinion, unless of course I'm willing to share your appreciation of that act (someone being so concerned about someone else that s/he tries to "save" that person), and I'm not: I don't interpret that as an compassionate act, but as an attempt to feel less uncertain by having utter bull# shared by others.

morality is brain activity

First...

Is there really a problem of Christians harassing some of you, demanding that you believe as they do?

There is a lot of rhetoric portraying that as how it really is, but I live in the infamous Bible Belt, and yet have never encountered anything that could be described that way. I have seen street evangelists yelling about how everyone is going to Hell, but I have seen street hawkers yelling to come see a strip show, too. Hardly a typical, everyday, slice of life.

Second...

The flip side of the OP's question is one I have wondered about...

Is it moral to force someone to make a choice without first allowing the person to consider the whole of the faith?

The Christian faith, may well be rejected if the faith is taught wrongly or incompletely; and if a person presents the faith in a manner which ought to be rejected -- is it not the fault (and judgment?) of the evangelist, not the non-believer?

There is a valid and strong theological position that holds that if a person has not heard the Gospel (or not heard it correctly) then that person is not judged by God for his or her lack of faith. If that is correct, than a person who cannot properly teach the faith might do well to remain silent.

Why?

Because the Christian faith is difficult. It demands discipline, self-sacrificing choices, endurance, and an unending striving for God and against the world, the flesh and the devil. Except for the fact that I believe Christianity to be true, I would not wish it on anyone.

Finally...

As an aside, and for perspective, I have had a few atheist and agnostic friends tell me that if, as children, they had been taught the faith as I present it when discussing such things, they would probably consider themselves Christians today. Maybe, but I doubt it. While they admire my faith, they do not want it, because they see how difficult my life is and has been and they want no part of that. I don't blame them.

If God wanted them to toss away all of their life's work and worldly skills so that they could take up the discipline and practice of the Christian faith, He would give them that desire. If God has not given them that desire, then God is not blaming them, either. I do not know why God does not give such a desire to all persons, but that He does not cannot be for the purpose of damning them.

Originally posted by Frira
The flip side of the OP's question is one I have wondered about...
Is it moral to force someone to make a choice without first allowing the person to consider the whole of the faith?

Is it moral to force someone ...[insert anything here...]?
Always ... Always No. Forcing someone against their will sexually is rape. Forcing something physically against their will is abuse. Forcing something mentally against their will is mind control. Whatever it is... it's a form of control and is usually thought to be morally wrong.

But on the other hand, one might argue that to have morals one must have some kind of faith in something or standards in something. Something that would keep them from behaving in a forceful way towards another human being.

I could be way off on this, but that's my gist and my opinion. What do you think about the more generalized view of morality and being forced to do something against your will?

Speaking of forcing, technically being Christian or choosing to be Christian is giving up your free will. A gift from a God that you believe in so that you can choose to follow him freely, but after you make that choice your free will is more than likely null and void due to the strict guidelines of maintaining Good Standing status with your God and your Faith and your Church, etc etc.

****

I say You and mean people in general that have this faith, thought, view point. Yes, I'm biased. So please give me your 2 to 25 cents. I love learning new things from other people, and am always open to others opinion, as I'm constantly morphing my own as I learn and age and experience.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


If there is such thing as God, why did he make me an atheist?

In every major religion, a man is worshipped. If not man worshipped, then devil worship. Therefore, all religions are corrupt, invalid, and driven by moral man. Stop practicing religion and serve God only.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Are those people in your life who try to convert you to save you from Hell moral and correct in their actions?

If one sincerely believes in Hell and cares about you enough to try to save you from it, they must be a moral and caring person acting in the right, otherwise to let you perish would make them an amoral sociopath.

However, the more someone tries to save you, the more of an undesirable creep they are perceived to be. Religious conversion is often unwanted.

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

An interesting question.

At the root, it's about power (perhaps not in the way you think of it) - a person feels powerful and empowered from having given you something they feel is correct and helpful. So I think someone can become addicted to this kind of behavior.

Now... I'm Pagan. I'm not Christian. That said. the issue of "is it moral" is complicated. "Morality" is "what society agrees is correct." There is no such thing as an absolute set of morals -- Christians, you need to acknowledge that at one time the early Christians believed it was moral to hunt out and kill witches (and before you all scream "Catholics!" I will politely point you to the Salem Witch Trials.) They believed enslaving people was moral. They believed that allowing a man to have multiple wives was moral (see the Biblical patriarchs) and that allowing girls to be married at age 3 or 4 was moral (see the European kings, midrash rulings on the correct age of girls to be married (3 years, one day is the minimum... and yes, I did look that one up extensively), that killing Native Americans and declaring them baptized as they lay dying (yes, that was done) was also moral and even desirable.

In today's society, it may fall in the boundaries of "moral" for some areas of the world. Certainly, in theocracies (Muslim theocracies) it would be (and is)seen as a moral practice. In Japan (a mostly atheistic society) it would not be seen as a moral action and would instead be seen as the height of rudeness to approach someone and attempt to convert them.

I write this while sitting at my old college campus (a Baptist university) where the morals of today are present on a campus where I learned a different sort of morals. It was the height of rudeness for men to yell (whistle and bark) at the girls and women back when I came here -- now it's acceptable. The jocks being rowdy in the dining hall would have been seen as rude and unacceptable here back in that old bygone era.

There are many things going on which are neither moral nor immoral but that I don't like. Alumni are valued for the amount of money we give, and they play games with us to try and suck even more money out of each class (I expressed my displeasure over what they wanted from my class.) There is a blindness here (that had been here before) that "beauty celebrates goodness." They're wasting water here to keep grass and athletic fields green while th rest of the town is dry and brown and drought has burned many acres near here.

So... your original question -- neither moral nor immoral in today's society. And (here at this fundamentalist college) students here would dearly love to convert all the other Christians to Southern Baptists because they know in their hearts that the most moral of all Christians are the Southern Baptists and all other denominations including home churches have some terrible errors of philosophy.

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
reply to post by Annee

 

It's always talk about christians or catholics trying to change peoples beliefs, when the atheists take the cake by far...

Uh huh - - - I was a believer for 50+ years.

I admitted to Atheist only the last 5.

When you are Atheist for 50+ years - - then admit you are a believer the last 5 - - - we might then have something interesting to talk about.

Christians have a serious persecution complex. I know. I was one for many years.