The Death/Loss Of Religion In America (2 Viewers)

[Terminalxylem]

Joe, say one of your kids starts down a path that would lead to destruction and you “know” it will. Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything in your power to convince your kid you are correct and they are wrong?

Of course, I'd do all I could. I'm not sure where I've said anything different to make you think I'm saying I wouldn't.

Especially in what you quoted from me.

Yeah, I think it's my misunderstanding what folks are saying. Not to put words in anyone's mouth but sounds like the position we are both taking is we would do anything WE THINK would help - we just disagree on what would help.

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me, because the promise of a chance at eternal life vs. damnation is worth so much more than learning/hearing music, beating traffic, etc. And even if people have heard it all before, if I believed, I’d have a hard time not reiterating it ad nauseam.

To use another analogy, I work in healthcare. Many people have terrible habits, which get them into trouble with chronic medical conditions. Even though they’ve all been counseled regarding weight loss, smoking cessation, abstinence from drugs or alcohol, etc., I remind them each visit, and offer to help them change their ways. And you know what? Some of them do, eventually. Some get irritated, too, but I think the net effect is for the best.

IIRC, it takes 6 attempt at quitting smoking before the average person is successful. While ultimately the individual must make the decision to quit, I’m certain they’ve been counseled multiple times along the way. Same goes for weight loss and substance cessation. Health is too important to look the other way, or assume people know better. And it‘s not good enough to lead by example.

I see no reason why proselytizing is any different, as there is arguably nothing more important than faith.

To be clear, I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when believers share their faith, as long as it is done respectfully.

Well sure. And I remind people all the time, too. But do you remind people when you're not in the office? Do you bring up the topic out of the blue when there is something unrelated being discussed? You bring it up in a proper context, where your professional input will carry some weight. But I bet even if you have had special personal projects outside work, people who you intentionally work on with this proselytization, you don't bring these things up incessantly in a personal setting. If I'm wrong, how successful has that been?

You can see my post about my sister. I’ve offered help/insight in non-professional settings for substance use, weight loss and exercise, too, with varying degrees of success. And I don’t do it all the time.

But nothing I can offer, whether solicited or not, is remotely as important as eternal life.

 

[Psychopav]

Joe, say one of your kids starts down a path that would lead to destruction and you “know” it will. Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything in your power to convince your kid you are correct and they are wrong?

Of course, I'd do all I could. I'm not sure where I've said anything different to make you think I'm saying I wouldn't.

Especially in what you quoted from me.

Yeah, I think it's my misunderstanding what folks are saying. Not to put words in anyone's mouth but sounds like the position we are both taking is we would do anything WE THINK would help - we just disagree on what would help.

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me, because the promise of a chance at eternal life vs. damnation is worth so much more than learning/hearing music, beating traffic, etc. And even if people have heard it all before, if I believed, I’d have a hard time not reiterating it ad nauseam.

To use another analogy, I work in healthcare. Many people have terrible habits, which get them into trouble with chronic medical conditions. Even though they’ve all been counseled regarding weight loss, smoking cessation, abstinence from drugs or alcohol, etc., I remind them each visit, and offer to help them change their ways. And you know what? Some of them do, eventually. Some get irritated, too, but I think the net effect is for the best.

IIRC, it takes 6 attempt at quitting smoking before the average person is successful. While ultimately the individual must make the decision to quit, I’m certain they’ve been counseled multiple times along the way. Same goes for weight loss and substance cessation. Health is too important to look the other way, or assume people know better. And it‘s not good enough to lead by example.

I see no reason why proselytizing is any different, as there is arguably nothing more important than faith.

To be clear, I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when believers share their faith, as long as it is done respectfully.

Well sure. And I remind people all the time, too. But do you remind people when you're not in the office? Do you bring up the topic out of the blue when there is something unrelated being discussed? You bring it up in a proper context, where your professional input will carry some weight. But I bet even if you have had special personal projects outside work, people who you intentionally work on with this proselytization, you don't bring these things up incessantly in a personal setting. If I'm wrong, how successful has that been?

You can see my post about my sister. I’ve offered help/insight in non-professional settings for substance use, weight loss and exercise, too, with varying degrees of success. And I don’t do it all the time.

But nothing I can offer, whether solicited or not, is remotely as important as eternal life.

To a believer, sure. But to a nonbeliever, isn't life or death of the highest importance? I'd say your example above is an apt analogy.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Joe, say one of your kids starts down a path that would lead to destruction and you “know” it will. Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything in your power to convince your kid you are correct and they are wrong?

Of course, I'd do all I could. I'm not sure where I've said anything different to make you think I'm saying I wouldn't.

Especially in what you quoted from me.

Yeah, I think it's my misunderstanding what folks are saying. Not to put words in anyone's mouth but sounds like the position we are both taking is we would do anything WE THINK would help - we just disagree on what would help.

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me, because the promise of a chance at eternal life vs. damnation is worth so much more than learning/hearing music, beating traffic, etc. And even if people have heard it all before, if I believed, I’d have a hard time not reiterating it ad nauseam.

To use another analogy, I work in healthcare. Many people have terrible habits, which get them into trouble with chronic medical conditions. Even though they’ve all been counseled regarding weight loss, smoking cessation, abstinence from drugs or alcohol, etc., I remind them each visit, and offer to help them change their ways. And you know what? Some of them do, eventually. Some get irritated, too, but I think the net effect is for the best.

IIRC, it takes 6 attempt at quitting smoking before the average person is successful. While ultimately the individual must make the decision to quit, I’m certain they’ve been counseled multiple times along the way. Same goes for weight loss and substance cessation. Health is too important to look the other way, or assume people know better. And it‘s not good enough to lead by example.

I see no reason why proselytizing is any different, as there is arguably nothing more important than faith.

To be clear, I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when believers share their faith, as long as it is done respectfully.

Well sure. And I remind people all the time, too. But do you remind people when you're not in the office? Do you bring up the topic out of the blue when there is something unrelated being discussed? You bring it up in a proper context, where your professional input will carry some weight. But I bet even if you have had special personal projects outside work, people who you intentionally work on with this proselytization, you don't bring these things up incessantly in a personal setting. If I'm wrong, how successful has that been?

You can see my post about my sister. I’ve offered help/insight in non-professional settings for substance use, weight loss and exercise, too, with varying degrees of success. And I don’t do it all the time.

But nothing I can offer, whether solicited or not, is remotely as important as eternal life.

To a believer, sure. But to a nonbeliever, isn't life or death of the highest importance? I'd say your example above is an apt analogy.

Yes, but health advice is far from guaranteed to prolong life, unlike faith’s impact on eternity.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I suspect they were much better at the telephone game than we are today in our culture.

I remember the "telephone game" aspect being an important topic. The party game is fun and kind of ridiculous. But the reality of how many of the oral and written traditions were passed down over the years (not just Christianity) were quite different than the game. People devoted their lives to passing down the tradition and accuracy was paramount. This wasn't a fun game for them. Their focus was on preserving the words and getting them exactly right. Very different from the party game.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me,

So I'm clear, can you redefine the point you're making?

That you think believers should share their faith if they really believe it?

Yes, liberally and repeatedly, while demonstrating behavior consistent with religious values.

In my experience, this rarely happens, with the vast majority of devout people keeping their thoughts to themselves. That’s certainly their prerogative, but I still find it surprising.

My sister is an intelligent, educated woman, who happens to be obese. My mom was obese, too, and died of diabetic complications. Even though she’s heard it all before, every time we talk, I always ask my sister about her health, and remind her about delinquent testing, as she keeps postponing seeing a doctor.

She usually makes bad excuses, and attempts to change the topic, but ends up acknowledging the need to take care of her health. And even though I suspect she’ll keep putting it off, I’m not going to give up, as I firmly believe people can change, or “see the light”, and it isn’t always readily apparent why they do so.

Taking care of my own health , to set an example, isn’t enough, just as personal connection to god isn’t enough to save one’s loved ones. Any potential harm of “lecturing” nonbelievers is more than offset by the benefits, imo.

Thank you. I think we're in agreement there and in my experience, most Christians would act the same way toward a non believing sister as you are toward your sister you'd like to make healthier decisions.

There is a balance there that's delicate though of course. As an adult, you can't force her to make better decisions. You can only hope to persuade her. And an important part of that ability is keeping a connection to her. There's a chance you might get her to change if you threatened to do something wild. But the reality is demands or something crazy would likely have the result of breaking the connection and then you lose any ability to have influence.

There's also an additional challenge to influencing the spiritual decision unlike a health decision. You might convince your sister to make actual changes and she might get healthier even if she was just doing it for you or hated the new way of life.

For a spiritual change, the actions have to be internal and genuine. You can't fake them or go through the motions.

You could lock someone in a cell and feed them a diet that would make them lose weight.

But you can't do the same type of coercion for spiritual things.

So it's a challenge.

I will say in my experience Christians often carry tremendous burden and anguish for this very topic when people close to them don't share their faith.

My close friend just lost his father in law who wasn't a believer and it's been a serious thing for he and his wife. So it's not like what you're asking about isn't a regular thing. It just doesn't get talked about a lot.

 

[dgreen]

I suspect they were much better at the telephone game than we are today in our culture.

I remember the "telephone game" aspect being an important topic. The party game is fun and kind of ridiculous. But the reality of how many of the oral and written traditions were passed down over the years (not just Christianity) were quite different than the game. People devoted their lives to passing down the tradition and accuracy was paramount. This wasn't a fun game for them. Their focus was on preserving the words and getting them exactly right. Very different from the party game.

Yep. From New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, by David Bivin:

Spoiler

How did the teachings of Jesus become our Gospels? How reliable are they at preserving Jesus’ words? Why are many of Jesus’ sayings in a different order in each Gospel? We can have a much better understanding of how the Gospels were written by looking at the unusual method used by first-century rabbis to accurately preserve their sayings over time.

It may surprise us that a disciple of a sage was not permitted to transmit in writing the words of his master. A rabbi’s teaching was considered “Oral Torah” (inspired, authoritative Scripture interpretation), and as such its transmission in writing was strongly prohibited. It therefore seems likely that Jesus’ first disciples would not have dared preserve his teaching in writing, but would have transmitted it orally. Rather than compromising Jesus’ words, this was more likely key to preserving them accurately for future generations.

We tend to view orally transmitted material as less trustworthy than material transmitted in writing. This is because we are familiar only with the oral transmission of myths such as Viking sagas, which were modified with each retelling. The so-called “Oral Hypothesis,” accepted by most New Testament scholars for nearly a century, is based on the assumption that gospel stories, faint memories of the original Semitic stories, are an oral development within the early Greek-speaking church. It is taken for granted that these stories were embellished by Greek-speaking teachers and preachers, growing to their present size as they were told and retold, only to be written down in Greek decades after the death of Jesus.

Oral transmission in rabbinic circles within first-century Jewish society was not at all like this. The transmission of oral literature by rabbis and their disciples approached 100% accuracy, far greater accuracy than could be achieved through written transmission. When literature is transmitted in hand-copied documents, inevitably mistakes known as “scribal errors” creep in. The rabbis were aware of this danger. They knew that if their literature were transmitted in writing, it would lose its high degree of accuracy. Therefore, they forbade its written transmission.

To illustrate, consider this version of Matthew 6:10: “Thy kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in heaven….” Because most Christians recall this line from memory, the smallest error leaps out. Similarly, when a saying is repeated orally in a community where it is known by several members, together they insure its accuracy. But if a saying is only preserved and transmitted in handwriting, the self-correction is absent. Any errors would unknowingly be perpetuated.

It is hard for us to appreciate the trustworthiness and accuracy of oral transmission within rabbinic circles of the first century. The disciple of a sage was not permitted to alter even one word of a tradition he had received from his teacher when quoting him to others. The disciple was also required to cite his sources. Thus, many rabbinic sayings are introduced, “Rabbi Y in the name of Rabbi X,” in other words, “Rabbi Y, who is transmitting a tradition he has received from Rabbi X.” It also is hard for us to appreciate the volume of orally transmitted material that disciples of a firstcentury rabbi had committed to memory. They knew an enormous amount of oral literature, including the Scriptures, the way Christians know the Lord’s Prayer.

 

[massraider]

People devoted their lives to passing down the tradition and accuracy was paramount. This wasn't a fun game for them. Their focus was on preserving the words and getting them exactly right

Says who? Them?

 

[Joe Bryant]

People devoted their lives to passing down the tradition and accuracy was paramount. This wasn't a fun game for them. Their focus was on preserving the words and getting them exactly right

Says who? Them?

I think it's mostly historians and understanding how words were passed down. I don't think it's a controversial position to say people devoted their lives to passing down the tradition and accuracy was paramount. And this wasn't a fun game for them and they had a focus on preserving the words and getting them exactly right. And obviously, we believe this based on historians who are some of these same people. But at some point, there is an element of faith involved to trust things are being told as they were. If not, all of history begins to fall apart if one can't trust anything they didn't actually see themselves.

And for the bigger point, I'm certain there are plenty of errors in history. And there were mistakes made in handing the stories down. That seems obvious. My point is I don't think it was like the fun party game of telephone where the point was to see how fast and funny the story could be passed.

 

[Joe Bryant]

From @dgreen post above.

From New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, by David Bivin:

How did the teachings of Jesus become our Gospels? How reliable are they at preserving Jesus’ words? Why are many of Jesus’ sayings in a different order in each Gospel? We can have a much better understanding of how the Gospels were written by looking at the unusual method used by first-century rabbis to accurately preserve their sayings over time.

It may surprise us that a disciple of a sage was not permitted to transmit in writing the words of his master. A rabbi’s teaching was considered “Oral Torah” (inspired, authoritative Scripture interpretation), and as such its transmission in writing was strongly prohibited. It therefore seems likely that Jesus’ first disciples would not have dared preserve his teaching in writing, but would have transmitted it orally. Rather than compromising Jesus’ words, this was more likely key to preserving them accurately for future generations.

We tend to view orally transmitted material as less trustworthy than material transmitted in writing. This is because we are familiar only with the oral transmission of myths such as Viking sagas, which were modified with each retelling. The so-called “Oral Hypothesis,” accepted by most New Testament scholars for nearly a century, is based on the assumption that gospel stories, faint memories of the original Semitic stories, are an oral development within the early Greek-speaking church. It is taken for granted that these stories were embellished by Greek-speaking teachers and preachers, growing to their present size as they were told and retold, only to be written down in Greek decades after the death of Jesus.

Oral transmission in rabbinic circles within first-century Jewish society was not at all like this. The transmission of oral literature by rabbis and their disciples approached 100% accuracy, far greater accuracy than could be achieved through written transmission. When literature is transmitted in hand-copied documents, inevitably mistakes known as “scribal errors” creep in. The rabbis were aware of this danger. They knew that if their literature were transmitted in writing, it would lose its high degree of accuracy. Therefore, they forbade its written transmission.

To illustrate, consider this version of Matthew 6:10: “Thy kingdom come, my will be done on earth as it is in heaven….” Because most Christians recall this line from memory, the smallest error leaps out. Similarly, when a saying is repeated orally in a community where it is known by several members, together they insure its accuracy. But if a saying is only preserved and transmitted in handwriting, the self-correction is absent. Any errors would unknowingly be perpetuated.

It is hard for us to appreciate the trustworthiness and accuracy of oral transmission within rabbinic circles of the first century. The disciple of a sage was not permitted to alter even one word of a tradition he had received from his teacher when quoting him to others. The disciple was also required to cite his sources. Thus, many rabbinic sayings are introduced, “Rabbi Y in the name of Rabbi X,” in other words, “Rabbi Y, who is transmitting a tradition he has received from Rabbi X.” It also is hard for us to appreciate the volume of orally transmitted material that disciples of a firstcentury rabbi had committed to memory. They knew an enormous amount of oral literature, including the Scriptures, the way Christians know the Lord’s Prayer.

Again, I'm sure it wasn't perfect. My point was I think it was different than the fun party game of Telephone.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And to add, I absolutely think "Was it like the party game of Telephone?" is a fair question to ask and explore.

 

[Jayrod]

Process of copying the Old Testament by Jewish Scribes

In 586 B.C., Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians. The Temple was looted and then destroyed by fire. The Jews were exiled. About 70 years later, the Jewish captives returned to Jerusalem from …

scottmanning.com

Being a Jewish scribe was a full time profession in the pre-Christ centuries. Literally what these guys did for a living.

Since Christ, we are in relatively "modern" history. The accuracy of the New Testament books really isn't all that disputed in academic circles. We are pretty locked in on those books from like the 2nd century on and the Bible is the most accurate of all writings from that time period.

 

[culdeus]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

 

[Joe Bryant]

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

You're in good company as that's a very popular topic among folks. Some are in the "once saved, always saved". Others in the "if you were truly saved, your life will reflect it and maybe you don't "lose" your salvation but you didn't have it in the first place." It's complicated and there's a ton of writing on it.

My personal opinion is I don't really know. I do think if the salvation and initial change to follow Jesus was sincere and real, one would continue to live a life that reflected that decision. Not a "fire insurance" get out of jail type card. It seems insincere and hypocritical to see a decision to follow Christ as buying an "infinite lives" card and then going back to not following Christ.

And to be clear, there's a huge difference between a sincere Christian failing to live the way we're called and one who throws everything out the window thinking they have their "card" and nothing else matters.

I heard it said one time it's the difference between a pig and a cat. A pig gets in the mud and is fine with it. They wallow in it. A cat gets muddy and tries to clean itself up.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's sort of how I see it.

 

[culdeus]

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

You're in good company as that's a very popular topic among folks. Some are in the "once saved, always saved". Others in the "if you were truly saved, your life will reflect it and maybe you don't "lose" your salvation but you didn't have it in the first place." It's complicated and there's a ton of writing on it.

My personal opinion is I don't really know. I do think if the salvation and initial change to follow Jesus was sincere and real, one would continue to live a life that reflected that decision. Not a "fire insurance" get out of jail type card. It seems insincere and hypocritical to see a decision to follow Christ as buying an "infinite lives" card and then going back to not following Christ.

And to be clear, there's a huge difference between a sincere Christian failing to live the way we're called and one who throws everything out the window thinking they have their "card" and nothing else matters.

I heard it said one time it's the difference between a pig and a cat. A pig gets in the mud and is fine with it. They wallow in it. A cat gets muddy and tries to clean itself up.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's sort of how I see it.

This is where the concept of purgatory, which I suppose doesn't really even exist for Catholics anymore, made some sense. Dealt with a lot of the edge cases in a nice neat package.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Back on @Terminalxylem 's point on the evangelism, I don't know how other religions are but in Christianity, there's a good bit of talk on it.

A common story is when Jesus told the parable for the farmer scattering seed in Matthew 13:

3 He told many stories in the form of parables, such as this one:

“Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. 4 As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. 5 Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. 6 But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. 8 Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! 9 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”

18 “Now listen to the explanation of the parable about the farmer planting seeds: 19 The seed that fell on the footpath represents those who hear the message about the Kingdom and don’t understand it. Then the evil one comes and snatches away the seed that was planted in their hearts. 20 The seed on the rocky soil represents those who hear the message and immediately receive it with joy. 21 But since they don’t have deep roots, they don’t last long. They fall away as soon as they have problems or are persecuted for believing God’s word. 22 The seed that fell among the thorns represents those who hear God’s word, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the worries of this life and the lure of wealth, so no fruit is produced. 23 The seed that fell on good soil represents those who truly hear and understand God’s word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted!”

The passage is often interpreted as our job as the farmer is to "sow the seed". Meaning tell others about Jesus.

We can't make the seed take root or grow or flourish. That's God's role.

Now of course, you have to be sensible. A farmer that poured all the seed out on the parking lot would be a poor farmer.

But at some point, there's a spot where the farmer has to accept he's done the best job he can of planting the seed and God does the rest.

And of course, what "God doing the rest" means gets into a whole deeper level of stuff with "Predestination" and other nerdy religious type topics.

But back to the question of how to talk to people about Jesus, I think this can be helpful.

I'll also say the analogy struggles with the realization one's sister is not a random seed scattered. I get it.

 

[Psychopav]

Joe, say one of your kids starts down a path that would lead to destruction and you “know” it will. Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything in your power to convince your kid you are correct and they are wrong?

Of course, I'd do all I could. I'm not sure where I've said anything different to make you think I'm saying I wouldn't.

Especially in what you quoted from me.

Yeah, I think it's my misunderstanding what folks are saying. Not to put words in anyone's mouth but sounds like the position we are both taking is we would do anything WE THINK would help - we just disagree on what would help.

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me, because the promise of a chance at eternal life vs. damnation is worth so much more than learning/hearing music, beating traffic, etc. And even if people have heard it all before, if I believed, I’d have a hard time not reiterating it ad nauseam.

To use another analogy, I work in healthcare. Many people have terrible habits, which get them into trouble with chronic medical conditions. Even though they’ve all been counseled regarding weight loss, smoking cessation, abstinence from drugs or alcohol, etc., I remind them each visit, and offer to help them change their ways. And you know what? Some of them do, eventually. Some get irritated, too, but I think the net effect is for the best.

IIRC, it takes 6 attempt at quitting smoking before the average person is successful. While ultimately the individual must make the decision to quit, I’m certain they’ve been counseled multiple times along the way. Same goes for weight loss and substance cessation. Health is too important to look the other way, or assume people know better. And it‘s not good enough to lead by example.

I see no reason why proselytizing is any different, as there is arguably nothing more important than faith.

To be clear, I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when believers share their faith, as long as it is done respectfully.

Well sure. And I remind people all the time, too. But do you remind people when you're not in the office? Do you bring up the topic out of the blue when there is something unrelated being discussed? You bring it up in a proper context, where your professional input will carry some weight. But I bet even if you have had special personal projects outside work, people who you intentionally work on with this proselytization, you don't bring these things up incessantly in a personal setting. If I'm wrong, how successful has that been?

You can see my post about my sister. I’ve offered help/insight in non-professional settings for substance use, weight loss and exercise, too, with varying degrees of success. And I don’t do it all the time.

But nothing I can offer, whether solicited or not, is remotely as important as eternal life.

To a believer, sure. But to a nonbeliever, isn't life or death of the highest importance? I'd say your example above is an apt analogy.

Yes, but health advice is far from guaranteed to prolong life, unlike faith’s impact on eternity.

I don't know, if you say so. If you're trying to get someone to quit smoking, you probably feel like cigarettes are guaranteed to shorten someone's life.

 

[Psychopav]

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

You're in good company as that's a very popular topic among folks. Some are in the "once saved, always saved". Others in the "if you were truly saved, your life will reflect it and maybe you don't "lose" your salvation but you didn't have it in the first place." It's complicated and there's a ton of writing on it.

My personal opinion is I don't really know. I do think if the salvation and initial change to follow Jesus was sincere and real, one would continue to live a life that reflected that decision. Not a "fire insurance" get out of jail type card. It seems insincere and hypocritical to see a decision to follow Christ as buying an "infinite lives" card and then going back to not following Christ.

And to be clear, there's a huge difference between a sincere Christian failing to live the way we're called and one who throws everything out the window thinking they have their "card" and nothing else matters.

I heard it said one time it's the difference between a pig and a cat. A pig gets in the mud and is fine with it. They wallow in it. A cat gets muddy and tries to clean itself up.

I'm not sure if that answers your question but that's sort of how I see it.

This is where the concept of purgatory, which I suppose doesn't really even exist for Catholics anymore, made some sense. Dealt with a lot of the edge cases in a nice neat package.

Purgatory 100% exists for Catholics. In fact, just yesterday I opened a package from my brother informing us that he is having masses said for the repose of the souls of our parents and a deceased friend in April. I believe it's "my" Christmas present.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Back on @Terminalxylem 's point on the evangelism, I don't know how other religions are but in Christianity, there's a good bit of talk on it.

A common story is when Jesus told the parable for the farmer scattering seed in Matthew 13:

3 He told many stories in the form of parables, such as this one:

“Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. 4 As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. 5 Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. 6 But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. 8 Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! 9 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”

18 “Now listen to the explanation of the parable about the farmer planting seeds: 19 The seed that fell on the footpath represents those who hear the message about the Kingdom and don’t understand it. Then the evil one comes and snatches away the seed that was planted in their hearts. 20 The seed on the rocky soil represents those who hear the message and immediately receive it with joy. 21 But since they don’t have deep roots, they don’t last long. They fall away as soon as they have problems or are persecuted for believing God’s word. 22 The seed that fell among the thorns represents those who hear God’s word, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the worries of this life and the lure of wealth, so no fruit is produced. 23 The seed that fell on good soil represents those who truly hear and understand God’s word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted!”

The passage is often interpreted as our job as the farmer is to "sow the seed". Meaning tell others about Jesus.

We can't make the seed take root or grow or flourish. That's God's role.

Now of course, you have to be sensible. A farmer that poured all the seed out on the parking lot would be a poor farmer.

But at some point, there's a spot where the farmer has to accept he's done the best job he can of planting the seed and God does the rest.

And of course, what "God doing the rest" means gets into a whole deeper level of stuff with "Predestination" and other nerdy religious type topics.

But back to the question of how to talk to people about Jesus, I think this can be helpful.

I'll also say the analogy struggles with the realization one's sister is not a random seed scattered. I get it.

Thanks Joe.That’s a great passage.

My problem is, I don’t see enough farmers in my life. Even people I consider “good” Christians aren’t spreading the word generously, imo. I say this as an atheist with many devout friends and acquaintances.

Heck, the only time in post-college life I’ve been proselytized is by strangers. People like Jehovah’s Witnesses going door-to-door.

One day I was sitting on the sidewalk outside the hospital, waiting for a ride to go climbing on the North Shore. I have a medium sized climbing pack, which is pretty worn, and I was unshaven. I probably appeared homeless.

A pair of gentlemen in slacks and Aloha shorts walked by, conferred about ten yards down the road, and one man walked back. He offered me a small pamphlet talking about salvation through Christ, and wished me a blessed day. Not only that, there was a fresh $10 bill inside!

For multiple reasons, that made my day. But I don’t think one should limit such gestures to strangers they believe are down on their luck. Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

 

[Terminalxylem]

Joe, say one of your kids starts down a path that would lead to destruction and you “know” it will. Are you saying you wouldn’t do anything in your power to convince your kid you are correct and they are wrong?

Of course, I'd do all I could. I'm not sure where I've said anything different to make you think I'm saying I wouldn't.

Especially in what you quoted from me.

Yeah, I think it's my misunderstanding what folks are saying. Not to put words in anyone's mouth but sounds like the position we are both taking is we would do anything WE THINK would help - we just disagree on what would help.

Yeah, all these analogies fall flat for me, because the promise of a chance at eternal life vs. damnation is worth so much more than learning/hearing music, beating traffic, etc. And even if people have heard it all before, if I believed, I’d have a hard time not reiterating it ad nauseam.

To use another analogy, I work in healthcare. Many people have terrible habits, which get them into trouble with chronic medical conditions. Even though they’ve all been counseled regarding weight loss, smoking cessation, abstinence from drugs or alcohol, etc., I remind them each visit, and offer to help them change their ways. And you know what? Some of them do, eventually. Some get irritated, too, but I think the net effect is for the best.

IIRC, it takes 6 attempt at quitting smoking before the average person is successful. While ultimately the individual must make the decision to quit, I’m certain they’ve been counseled multiple times along the way. Same goes for weight loss and substance cessation. Health is too important to look the other way, or assume people know better. And it‘s not good enough to lead by example.

I see no reason why proselytizing is any different, as there is arguably nothing more important than faith.

To be clear, I’m an atheist, and I appreciate it when believers share their faith, as long as it is done respectfully.

Well sure. And I remind people all the time, too. But do you remind people when you're not in the office? Do you bring up the topic out of the blue when there is something unrelated being discussed? You bring it up in a proper context, where your professional input will carry some weight. But I bet even if you have had special personal projects outside work, people who you intentionally work on with this proselytization, you don't bring these things up incessantly in a personal setting. If I'm wrong, how successful has that been?

You can see my post about my sister. I’ve offered help/insight in non-professional settings for substance use, weight loss and exercise, too, with varying degrees of success. And I don’t do it all the time.

But nothing I can offer, whether solicited or not, is remotely as important as eternal life.

To a believer, sure. But to a nonbeliever, isn't life or death of the highest importance? I'd say your example above is an apt analogy.

Yes, but health advice is far from guaranteed to prolong life, unlike faith’s impact on eternity.

I don't know, if you say so. If you're trying to get someone to quit smoking, you probably feel like cigarettes are guaranteed to shorten someone's life.

Smoking shortens lifespan about ten years, on average. But the oldest human on record, Jean Calment, smoked until she was 118.

Regardless the potential for 10 extra years <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< eternal bliss, rather than suffering

 

[Psychopav]

Back on @Terminalxylem 's point on the evangelism, I don't know how other religions are but in Christianity, there's a good bit of talk on it.

A common story is when Jesus told the parable for the farmer scattering seed in Matthew 13:

3 He told many stories in the form of parables, such as this one:

“Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. 4 As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. 5 Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. 6 But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. 7 Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. 8 Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! 9 Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand.”

18 “Now listen to the explanation of the parable about the farmer planting seeds: 19 The seed that fell on the footpath represents those who hear the message about the Kingdom and don’t understand it. Then the evil one comes and snatches away the seed that was planted in their hearts. 20 The seed on the rocky soil represents those who hear the message and immediately receive it with joy. 21 But since they don’t have deep roots, they don’t last long. They fall away as soon as they have problems or are persecuted for believing God’s word. 22 The seed that fell among the thorns represents those who hear God’s word, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the worries of this life and the lure of wealth, so no fruit is produced. 23 The seed that fell on good soil represents those who truly hear and understand God’s word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted!”

The passage is often interpreted as our job as the farmer is to "sow the seed". Meaning tell others about Jesus.

We can't make the seed take root or grow or flourish. That's God's role.

Now of course, you have to be sensible. A farmer that poured all the seed out on the parking lot would be a poor farmer.

But at some point, there's a spot where the farmer has to accept he's done the best job he can of planting the seed and God does the rest.

And of course, what "God doing the rest" means gets into a whole deeper level of stuff with "Predestination" and other nerdy religious type topics.

But back to the question of how to talk to people about Jesus, I think this can be helpful.

I'll also say the analogy struggles with the realization one's sister is not a random seed scattered. I get it.

Thanks Joe.That’s a great passage.

My problem is, I don’t see enough farmers in my life. Even people I consider “good” Christians aren’t spreading the word generously, imo. I say this as an atheist with many devout friends and acquaintances.

Heck, the only time in post-college life I’ve been proselytized is by strangers. People like Jehovah’s Witnesses going door-to-door.

One day I was sitting on the sidewalk outside the hospital, waiting for a ride to go climbing on the North Shore. I have a medium sized climbing pack, which is pretty worn, and I was unshaven. I probably appeared homeless.

A pair of gentlemen in slacks and Aloha shorts walked by, conferred about ten yards down the road, and one man walked back. He offered me a small pamphlet talking about salvation through Christ, and wished me a blessed day. Not only that, there was a fresh $10 bill inside!

For multiple reasons, that made my day. But I don’t think one should limit such gestures to strangers they believe are down on their luck. Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

I do think this is an excellent point.

 

[The Commish]

Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

Only your friends can answer this. For me, I understand where my friends are at with their beliefs. I also know which ones are open/not open to convos about beliefs because they tell me and make it relatively clear via other aspects of their lives.

I'll flip this around since communication is a two-way street. Have you asked them about their beliefs? Do you care what their beliefs are? With guys, we all know we all make a bunch of assumptions and a lot of times they aren't accurate.

 

[Chaos34]

Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

I do think this is an excellent point.

Not being obtuse, but I'm not sure I get the point. I say that with multiple possible points in mind.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

Not sure.

My offer still stands. I'd be glad to send you a copy of the Case For Christ book. Just shoot me a PM with your info on where to ship. It's not earth shaking but it's interesting I think.

For a general answer, I think a ton of Christian people feel like they're not welcome to share.

I know I personally was absolutely floored the first time I saw the Penn Jillette video. Other Christians have told me they were as well.

I'm less surprised when I see things now like we have here in this thread with people being more open.

But I know personally, lots of people don't feel a proselytizing message will be welcome even in the South where I live. And certainly not in other parts of the country where Christianity is less popular.

Even here I know there are the Ned Flanders or Jesusguys.com jokes. It's fine. But my guess is many Christians don't feel like their message will be welcome. And they're not willing to risk breaking relationship with a friend over it.

That would be my best guess as to why your friends aren't sharing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This is a message board where we like to argue about religion and politics. All of us are receptive to that sort of thing, or we wouldn't be here.

In real life, most people don't like to argue about religion and politics.

I don't think it's really all that much more complicated than that. People who bring up these topics in the real world the way they might on the internet tend to be extremely unpopular.

 

[Gally]

I believe it's "my" Christmas present.

Kind of like making a donation in your name for The Human Fund

 

[Chaos34]

Study: Churchgoers Believe in Sharing Faith, Most Never Do

It's a sample of just over 1000 Canadian churchgoers and 10 yrs old, so I expect the numbers have probably worsened, but almost 80% never share their faith. 10% said they had just once in the previous 6 months. Googling "why?" was pretty focussed on the primary reason being fear. Fear of rejection, fear of creating animosity, fear of being judged, etc.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

Only your friends can answer this. For me, I understand where my friends are at with their beliefs. I also know which ones are open/not open to convos about beliefs because they tell me and make it relatively clear via other aspects of their lives.

I'll flip this around since communication is a two-way street. Have you asked them about their beliefs? Do you care what their beliefs are? With guys, we all know we all make a bunch of assumptions and a lot of times they aren't accurate.

Yes, I’ve asked a couple of them (both males, FWIW). One is a part-time pastor, and was very comfortable talking about spirituality, and lack thereof. Although we don’t interact much anymore (multiple states away, but still a poor excuse), he always struck me as someone who “walked the walk,” and I’ve always respected his views, including his interactions with nonbelievers.

The other is a closer friend, and I kinda put him on the spot for not approaching me first. He acknowledged awkwardness and concern for offending people as barriers to discussing religious beliefs, and has since invited me to attend his church. I haven’t taken him up on it yet, but the few times I’ve attended, I’ve always liked the messaging in sermons.

 

[The Commish]

Why haven’t my religious friends even tried to share their spirituality with me?

Only your friends can answer this. For me, I understand where my friends are at with their beliefs. I also know which ones are open/not open to convos about beliefs because they tell me and make it relatively clear via other aspects of their lives.

I'll flip this around since communication is a two-way street. Have you asked them about their beliefs? Do you care what their beliefs are? With guys, we all know we all make a bunch of assumptions and a lot of times they aren't accurate.

Yes, I’ve asked a couple of them (both males, FWIW). One is a part-time pastor, and was very comfortable talking about spirituality, and lack thereof. Although we don’t interact much anymore (multiple states away, but still a poor excuse), he always struck me as someone who “walked the walk,” and I’ve always respected his views, including his interactions with nonbelievers.

The other is a closer friend, and I kinda put him on the spot for not approaching me first. He acknowledged awkwardness and concern for offending people as barriers to discussing religious beliefs, and has since invited me to attend his church. I haven’t taken him up on it yet, but the few times I’ve attended, I’ve always liked the messaging in sermons.

Sounds like you know why they don't. If it's a genuine interest for you, just start asking questions or asking for their opinions on some topic. Just in the limited interaction you and I have had on this topic, it really sounds like a "both waiting for the other to take the first step" kind of thing.

For me, I'll talk to anyone, anywhere about my beliefs, but I'm not one to go out and initiate the conversation, especially with a stranger. I'm the guy who invites the JW's into the house for some coffee and a conversation. I do my best to meet people where they are and do my best to avoid "arguments". Afterall, we are talking about beliefs and I am fully aware I'm not able to change minds. All I can do is present what I believe and why.

 

[Sleestak]

I believe it's "my" Christmas present.

Kind of like making a donation in your name for The Human Fund

Star Registry.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Jen Hatmaker is a writer I like.

I think she gets it right here:

Can we talk about Jesus for a second? Here on Christmas Eve?

Probably like a lot of you, church, organized religion, denominations, labels, Christmas chaos, faith words, political affiliations, cliches, Christians, all the ancillary faith things have muddied the waters at best, drained them entirely at worst.

Which I get. I am all over the place on those things. I have shed so many labels and affiliations in the last few years, there is hardly anything left that I can stand by, that I can believe in. I'll tell you what is left for me:
Jesus.

I can't quit him. Not all the BS that got attached to him, all his name has been used and abused for, but just him. That he would come to us poor, born to a young girl with no accolades, in a manger attended by shepherds. That he bypassed the palace where he rightly belonged as King and placed himself in the margins. His very birth explaining his kingdom.

So when we keep trying to put him on the Red Carpet, in the White House, under the spotlights, in the Winner's Circle, I get flustered and angry and fed up with the whole charade. I want to turn my back on the Enterprise which we had our chance at and ruined and be done.

But then I hear:

Oh holy night
The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth.
Long lay the world
In sin and error pining
Till he appeared
And the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope
A weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks
A new and glorious morn...

And I am gone. An absolute goner over this Jesus. The real one. Who came so every soul could feel its worth again. Who brought lasting joy to this weary, hard world. This Savior is indeed so dear to me. To my tired heart.

He is all that makes sense to me of everything he has ever been branded for. I love him and I can't not love him, and that is basically what I have left.

And it is more than enough. He always was.

If that is all you have left in your precious little hands too, you have all that matters.

Merry Christmas, beloveds. Here is to a new and glorious morn.

 

[rockaction]

People who bring up these topics in the real world the way they might on the internet tend to be extremely unpopular.

 

[Orange&Blue]

Why would people have free will, and not any other animal?

Which then begs the question - why would a god give any of his/her creations free will?

As a society we are currently debating the limits that should be placed on AI - precisely because we think giving AI "Free Will" is a bad idea. Should we go ahead and proceed with no restraints?

well, one was made in his image

 

[Orange&Blue]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

 

[Orange&Blue]

By Design: Behe, Lennox, and Meyer on the Evidence for a Creator

Recorded on October 15, 2022, in Fiesole, Italy.Michael Behe, John Lennox, and Steven Meyer are three of the leading voices in science and academia on the ca...

youtu.be

 

[culdeus]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

If I quit smoking and then 2 years later start smoking a pack a day again, can I really still claim to be a non smoker?

 

[culdeus]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

If I quit smoking and then 2 years later start smoking a pack a day again, can I really still claim to be a non smoker?

Not the best analogy here.

 

[Orange&Blue]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

As you know, there is a lot of disagreement between Christians on this. Some think "once saved always saved". Some think you need to continue to live in Christ.

If you truly accepted Christ I doubt one who has received the Holy Spirit would do nothing for 60 years.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Ilov80s]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

If I quit smoking and then 2 years later start smoking a pack a day again, can I really still claim to be a non smoker?

Not the best analogy here.

its obviously far more blunt but accepting a mindeset and way of life in one moment doesn’t make it permanent if your future actions and beliefs contradict it

 

[culdeus]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

If I quit smoking and then 2 years later start smoking a pack a day again, can I really still claim to be a non smoker?

Not the best analogy here.

its obviously far more blunt but accepting a mindeset and way of life in one moment doesn’t make it permanent if your future actions and beliefs contradict it

This seems a fairly big point though. What if you say yeah I'm good with Jesus. Get a W2 job pay taxes and stay out of trouble, but never really interact with religion in any negative or positive way. Would imply that there is more to it than declaring your belief system. Seems like would benefit you the most to come to the born again mindset late in life. Saves a lot of worry about whether you are living up to the standard.

 

[Ilov80s]

This is an important point that people don't want to hear: just because you don't molest kids or rob elderly people on the street doesn't mean you are a good person. The bar is much higher than that. Impossibly high, actually.

I think the issue many non-religious people have is the idea that a child molester can molest children for his entire life and then accept religion at the last minute and spend eternity in paradise while the theoretical most philanthropic person on the planet can spend eternity in hell. It’s rather absurd.

I am curious if other faiths have this loophole. It seems a bug not a feature. And there is some seriously strange edge cases where now you also have the remote desert island/baby situations to deal with. If this is the central faith action plan, and everything flows from it, seems broken.

There's also the timeliness of it, what if you accept christ as a teenager at a youth camp. You don't have a care for anything for 60 years, you still good?

what do you mean accept Christ?

Would one have really accepted Christ in your situation?

Didn't seem like there was a maintenance agreement signed with the contract.

If I quit smoking and then 2 years later start smoking a pack a day again, can I really still claim to be a non smoker?

Not the best analogy here.

its obviously far more blunt but accepting a mindeset and way of life in one moment doesn’t make it permanent if your future actions and beliefs contradict it

This seems a fairly big point though. What if you say yeah I'm good with Jesus. Get a W2 job pay taxes and stay out of trouble, but never really interact with religion in any negative or positive way. Would imply that there is more to it than declaring your belief system. Seems like would benefit you the most to come to the born again mindset late in life. Saves a lot of worry about whether you are living up to the standard.

I would say you haven’t actually accepted Christ then. You just gave it lip service.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don’t think faith is a system which can be gamed - surely an omniscient deity would know better?

Then again, why would an omnipotent being care how inconsequential mortals lived their brief time on earth?

 

[Snoopy]

Pascal's wager?

 

[Joe Bryant]

In my opinion, and it's just that, the "once saved always saved" debate is a distraction. For me at least, the answer is continue to follow Jesus. I think it's just better that way compared to thinking it's like buying a ticket and done. Lots of people have written and thought a lot about it. But for me, I see it often as a distraction.

 

[BlackCrowes]

Pascal's wager?

bad bet

 

[Terminalxylem]

Pascal's wager?

bad bet

Not a gambler, but seems like a big commitment of really precious time for nonbelievers. And as above, faith can’t be gamed imo.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Free will is one of those topics where extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. If there's one thing that each of experiences every day, it's the experience of thinking about stuff and making decisions. The fact that you considered the topic and decided that "free will" might be illusory is itself a data point in favor of free will. I know that I personally decide things all the time. When you have a lifetime of first-hand experience with reality, it should take gigantic amounts of extremely high-quality evidence to even budge that prior. Your reluctance to adjust your prior should only go up once you get into it and realize how much of this debate is just a semantic argument about what the term "free will" means.

You’ve never wanted to change something- maybe even something really important and failed repeatedly? Think of all the people wanting to lose weight, learn a new instrument, stop drinking, save money, etc. Also, the idea of where do our thoughts come from? Some of the most meaningful things I’ve ever done have been almost without any thought at all, they just happened or I just knew it what’s I would do. I often find the more I have to think about something, the less likely it is to happen. Why did I become a teacher? No idea just knew it was what I wanted to do and I love it. I was confident who I was going to marry pretty much 8 years before we ever even went on a date. When I cleaned up my health, it just happened. I went on a treadmill one morning, threw away all my weed, started eating less and just kept doing it. There was no plan or forethought.

I’m not a strong proponent of free will, but I’m not sure that these negate the concept of free will. The fact that you can have the idea to try to change and can sometimes change are evidence of free will. The fact that you can’t accomplish every single goal doesn’t mean that there is NO free will. I would say that an organism that can’t even entertain the notion of doing something different is demonstrating a lack of free will much more clearly. While I do agree that that people often have more of an illusion of free will than they realize and that basically everything that we do is influenced by outside factors in the past and present and specific incentives that may be known or unknown, within that framework, we do make choices. We also make choices about our futures and about a future self that is far less connected to us than many other people or activities in the present or immediate future. The breadth of choices we make about different timelines and about a (perceived) continuous self over decades suggests that there is some level of free will that exists.

 

[Ilov80s]

Free will is one of those topics where extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. If there's one thing that each of experiences every day, it's the experience of thinking about stuff and making decisions. The fact that you considered the topic and decided that "free will" might be illusory is itself a data point in favor of free will. I know that I personally decide things all the time. When you have a lifetime of first-hand experience with reality, it should take gigantic amounts of extremely high-quality evidence to even budge that prior. Your reluctance to adjust your prior should only go up once you get into it and realize how much of this debate is just a semantic argument about what the term "free will" means.

You’ve never wanted to change something- maybe even something really important and failed repeatedly? Think of all the people wanting to lose weight, learn a new instrument, stop drinking, save money, etc. Also, the idea of where do our thoughts come from? Some of the most meaningful things I’ve ever done have been almost without any thought at all, they just happened or I just knew it what’s I would do. I often find the more I have to think about something, the less likely it is to happen. Why did I become a teacher? No idea just knew it was what I wanted to do and I love it. I was confident who I was going to marry pretty much 8 years before we ever even went on a date. When I cleaned up my health, it just happened. I went on a treadmill one morning, threw away all my weed, started eating less and just kept doing it. There was no plan or forethought.

I’m not a strong proponent of free will, but I’m not sure that these negate the concept of free will. The fact that you can have the idea to try to change and can sometimes change are evidence of free will. The fact that you can’t accomplish every single goal doesn’t mean that there is NO free will. I would say that an organism that can’t even entertain the notion of doing something different is demonstrating a lack of free will much more clearly. While I do agree that that people often have more of an illusion of free will than they realize and that basically everything that we do is influenced by outside factors in the past and present and specific incentives that may be known or unknown, within that framework, we do make choices. We also make choices about our futures and about a future self that is far less connected to us than many other people or activities in the present or immediate future. The breadth of choices we make about different timelines and about a (perceived) continuous self over decades suggests that there is some level of free will that exists.

Perhaps some of that was explained poorly but the things I gave examples did not feel like decisions or ideas I had. They felt like things I just did or things I knew were going to happen regardless. Yes, I make decisions like will I watch a movie or a football game tonight. But in general, I feel more like an antenna receiving ideas than the person generating them. I feel more like I am observing myself follow a path. There is pretty much no meaningful situation that I ever consider. I just do what I do and it works out well.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In my opinion, and it's just that, the "once saved always saved" debate is a distraction. For me at least, the answer is continue to follow Jesus. I think it's just better that way compared to thinking it's like buying a ticket and done. Lots of people have written and thought a lot about it. But for me, I see it often as a distraction.

Same. I understand why this is an interesting issue philosophically, but it also doesn't really matter. This isn't why I go to church.

To make a strained analogy, if I don't mow my lawn during the summer, my HOA will get on my case and the city will fine me. I mow my lawn each week, but I'm not even thinking about any of that -- I mow my lawn because it's good to keep my lawn maintained, not because anybody is looking over my shoulder (even though they are).

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I don’t think faith is a system which can be gamed - surely an omniscient deity would know better?

Then again, why would an omnipotent being care how inconsequential mortals lived their brief time on earth?

If you are a mortal created by the omniscient deity, in the omniscient deity's image, why would you expect to be inconsequential to said omniscient deity?