Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. You don't see the quod pro quo. I see it fairly plainly.

So, what would you think of a similar threat and sales pitch by a character in a different religion to which you don’t subscribe?

You cited the mormons and claimed that there is some sort of kudos involved,and that they get credit of some kind.
Are you mormon? How do you know that they receive kudos or credit for what they do?

If another religion makes a claim, that is their affair. Any claim made has no bearing on my own belief and no bearing upon the Church that upholds my belief.

I don't personally benefit, or personally lose out, if you accept or reject Church teaching.
Therefore there is no quid pro quo involved. I don't gain anything personally by your decision, one way or the other.

The message given in the OP is one based upon charity only.
It is a gift.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

You cited the mormons and claimed that there is some sort of kudos involved,and that they get credit of some kind.
Are you mormon? How do you know that they receive kudos or credit for what they do?

If another religion makes a claim, that is their affair. Any claim made has no bearing on my own belief and no bearing upon the Church that upholds my belief.

I don't personally benefit, or personally lose out, if you accept or reject Church teaching.
Therefore there is no quid pro quo involved. I don't gain anything personally by your decision, one way or the other.

The message given in the OP is one based upon charity only.
It is a gift.

I'm not Mormon. I used Mormon as an example simply because I happen to know they get religious kudos for doing the missionary work by going door to door. It's not really relevant because people do volunteer work in all kings of areas for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean they can't be selling things because they're not being paid.

Exactly. Some character from a religion, that you don't follow, makes a claim/threat/warning and it has absolutely no impact on you or your belief. That's exactly what happens when a character from a religion I don't follow makes a claim/threat/warning, as per the OP.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not Mormon. I used Mormon as an example simply because I happen to know they get religious kudos for doing the missionary work by going door to door. It's not really relevant because people do volunteer work in all kings of areas for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean they can't be selling things because they're not being paid.

Exactly. Some character from a religion, that you don't follow, makes a claim/threat/warning and it has absolutely no impact on you or your belief. That's exactly what happens when a character from a religion I don't follow makes a claim/threat/warning, as per the OP.

It is relevant because you initially asserted that this is all a sales pitch. That was your assertion.

You fail to make the case that there is any quid pro quo involved.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

It is relevant because you initially asserted that this is all a sales pitch. That was your assertion.

You fail to make the case that there is any quid pro quo involved.

I don't think there is any need to establish a quid pro quo. People do charity work for no explicit pay. There is no explicit quid pro quo in doing volunteer work and yet it exists. Go down your local charity chop, talk to a volunteer and tell them they can't sell anything because there is no quid pro quo.

The sales pitch is obvious. If you want to move the goalposts to establishing a quid pro quo that's fine but it's beside the point.

The threaten your soul and offer to sell you the cure. Simple sales trick. Create jeopardy from nothing and sell the solution and that's what the passage in the OP does.

It's as easily dismissed by me as you dismiss another religion threatening your soul and offering to reduce the threat by you joining their religion. You wouldn't pay it a second's thought because its an empty threat.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think there is any need to establish a quid pro quo. People do charity work for no explicit pay. There is no explicit quid pro quo in doing volunteer work and yet it exists. Go down your local charity chop, talk to a volunteer and tell them they can't sell anything because there is no quid pro quo.

The sales pitch is obvious. If you want to move the goalposts to establishing a quid pro quo that's fine but it's beside the point.

The threaten your soul and offer to sell you the cure. Simple sales trick. Create jeopardy from nothing and sell the solution and that's what the passage in the OP does.

It's as easily dismissed by me as you dismiss another religion threatening your soul and offering to reduce the threat by you joining their religion. You wouldn't pay it a second's thought because its an empty threat.

You continue to miss the point entirely, as evidenced by what's underlined above.

It is you, and you only, who is responsible for your own behaviour. Your behaviour will determine the fate of your own soul.

I don't derive any benefit, or any loss, as a result of your behaviour, or your misbehaviour.

If you could explain what I gain, or lose, then perhaps there would be need for further conversation about this but you can't/won't explain what I gain, or lose.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

You continue to miss the point entirely, as evidenced by what's underlined above.

It is you, and you only, who is responsible for your own behaviour. Your behaviour will determine the fate of your own soul.

I don't derive any benefit, or any loss, as a result of your behaviour, or your misbehaviour.

If you could explain what I gain, or lose, then perhaps there would be need for further conversation about this but you can't/won't explain what I gain, or lose.

I haven't suggested you personally gain or lose anything. Where did you get that from?

The passage is selling the religion as a solution to the threat the religion makes against souls. Other people sell the religion too. I don't know if you're one of them or not. People do things for all sorts of reasons including (but not limited to) money, status, social approval, sense of satisfaction and personal pride. You might be selling for similar reasons to the bloke volunteering as a sales assistant in a charity shop.

I've no idea why you think I need to demonstrate where you personally gain or lose. Is it a way to avoid the obvious fact that the threat against other peoples' souls is a simple sales tactic?

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I haven't suggested you personally gain or lose anything. Where did you get that from?

The passage is selling the religion as a solution to the threat the religion makes against souls. Other people sell the religion too. I don't know if you're one of them or not. People do things for all sorts of reasons including (but not limited to) money, status, social approval, sense of satisfaction and personal pride. You might be selling for similar reasons to the bloke volunteering as a sales assistant in a charity shop.

I've no idea why you think I need to demonstrate where you personally gain or lose. Is it a way to avoid the obvious fact that the threat against other peoples' souls is a simple sales tactic?

Sale means that there is a gain to made.

Explain what I gain from your soul not perishing, or perishing, therefore.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Sale means that there is a gain to made.

Explain what I gain from your soul not perishing, or perishing, therefore.

There is the suggestion that in the measure you walk in line with God (which would include evangelising), you shall receive crowns.

So a reward system is in place.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Sale means that there is a gain to made.

Explain what I gain from your soul not perishing, or perishing, therefore.

I haven't said you gain anything. I'm really not sure why you're caught up on that. I suppose it's like telling the volunteer in the charity shop they can't be selling anything because they're volunteering.

The obvious answer is that the religion (charity shop in the analogy above) makes a gain by growing its membership. But I've absolutely no idea why you think I should explain how you (the volunteer in the analogy above) gain. I'm not suggesting you personally gain anything.

El_Duderino 09

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is the suggestion that in the measure you walk in line with God (which would include evangelising), you shall receive crowns.

So a reward system is in place.

That's definitely the business model in some religions but I don't know why it would need to apply to the sales person. They could be volunteering their time for any number of reasons which may or may not include any personal gain like the religious kudos.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is the suggestion that in the measure you walk in line with God (which would include evangelising), you shall receive crowns.

So a reward system is in place.

The fact of the matter is that some here assert that the warning (threat) cited in the OP is empty.

If they contend that there is no punishment in the next life, they can't credibly contend that there is some reward (crown) in the next life.

Bottom line they don't believe in the existence of an afterlife, with souls perishing, or not perishing, as the case may be.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that some here assert that the warning (threat) cited in the OP is empty.

If they contend that there is no punishment in the next life, they can't credibly contend that there is some reward (crown) in the next life.

Bottom line they don't believe in the existence of an afterlife, with souls perishing, or not perishing, as the case may be.

Oh yeah I think its just a sales tactic. I'll gladly pay you in the afterlife for your volunteer work, today, to paraphrase the old Wimpy cartoon.

I don't think there will be any repayment or punishment in the afterlife but the part of the transaction that happens in this life, is real - whether its joining the religion, evangelising, donating time or money to the religion. Those things are real its just the afterlife (where incidentally the threat/reward supposedly manifest) which is not real. It's just the other side of the sales trick.

hinault

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think there will be any repayment or punishment in the afterlife but the part of the transaction that happens in this life, is real - whether its joining the religion, evangelising, donating time or money to the religion. Those things are real its just the afterlife (where incidentally the threat/reward supposedly manifest) which is not real. It's just the other side of the sales trick.

Ah, finally.
You're entirely free to believe that there is no afterlife.

As I said to you already no one else will gain or lose by you holding that view.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that some here assert that the warning (threat) cited in the OP is empty.

If they contend that there is no punishment in the next life, they can't credibly contend that there is some reward (crown) in the next life.

Bottom line they don't believe in the existence of an afterlife, with souls perishing, or not perishing, as the case may be.

But they can assert that since you believe in heavenly reward, you are motivated by personal gain - even though they think it's all baloney.

I suppose it's something of a commentary on them that they have such issue with the idea of someone else being that concerned about their faith/fate. Doctors can be genuinely concerned, psychologists genuinely concerned, the police can be genuinely concerned

But not a believer. We're just doin' our duty.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

But they can assert that since you believe in heavenly reward, you are motivated by personal gain - even though they think it's all baloney.

I suppose it's something of a commentary on them that they have such issue with the idea of someone else being that concerned about their faith/fate. Doctors can be genuinely concerned, psychologists genuinely concerned, the police can be genuinely concerned

But not a believer. We're just doin' our duty.

Hold on. I'm not concerned with their fate.

They've been given a message. It is entirely their own decision to accept or reject that message
Having told them the message, it is up to themselves to make up their own mind.

Scripture says that if they reject the (message) and reject those who try to convey the message, then you walk away (brushing the dust of your sandals) and leave them to their own devices.

looksee

hinault wrote: »

Hold on. I'm not concerned with their fate.

They've been given a message. It is entirely their own decision to accept or reject that message
Having told them the message, it is up to themselves to make up their own mind.

Scripture says that if they reject the (message) and reject those who try to convey the message, then you walk away (brushing the dust of your sandals) and leave them to their own devices.

Now that would be good!

smacl

looksee wrote: »

Now that would be good!

Yes indeed. Unfortunately so long as we have excessive involvement of the church in the vast majority of state funded education in this country, it simply isn't the case. Maybe in another generation or two we can dispose of unwanted proselytising of our children.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not going to speak for theological, but I do share his definition of what a Christian is. Anyone is free to call themselves whatever they like, and I wouldn't want to restrict their right to do so. But that doesn't mean I have to endorse what they say or agree with it.

I don't think this is a freedom of expression issue; disagreement does not equal discrimination.

Agreed, merely pointing out that as with sex and sexuality, this is an area of disagreement between a biblically derived morality as opposed to one more informed by human rights.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Hold on. I'm not concerned with their fate.

They've been given a message. It is entirely their own decision to accept or reject that message
Having told them the message, it is up to themselves to make up their own mind.

Scripture says that if they reject the (message) and reject those who try to convey the message, then you walk away (brushing the dust of your sandals) and leave them to their own devices.

Well, let's say I am concerned. There is a 'professional detachment' - there's no benefit in dwelling to long and hard on things. And, like I have said, I don't think anyones salvation rests in anyone's hands but their own.

Nevertheless...

Giving a smoker a message about the horrific risks he runs .. and then standing contentedly by whilst they destroy themselves is a bit of a swallow.

I think God feels it more. Infinitely so. He is the other party who suffers immense loss - he loses the joy of them, just as much as they lose the joy of him. For joy is the whole point.

He is, I strongly suspect, cut to the bone when the answer is a final 'no' and the line he has cast in the attempt to reel a man is broken with the force and insistence of that naysay

The one that got away. A concern for me, a mere hook. Agonising for him, the fisherman

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well, let's say I am concerned. There is a 'professional detachment' - there's no benefit in dwelling to long and hard on things. And, like I have said, I don't think anyones salvation rests in anyone's hands but their own.

Nevertheless...

Giving a smoker a message about the horrific risks he runs .. and then standing contentedly by whilst they destroy themselves is a bit of a swallow.

I think God feels it more. He is the other party who suffers immense loss - he loses the joy of them them, just as they lose the joy of him. For joy is the whole point

He is cut to the bone when the answer is a final 'no' and the line he has cast in the attempt to reel a man in breaks.

The one that got away.

Having communicated the teaching, having that teaching rejected, investing more time and more energy there could mean depriving others who have never heard the message and thereby giving them a chance of salvation. This is why it's important not to dwell longer trying to persuade those obstinant in their rejection.

I do take your point about God's view concerning those that are lost.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

I do take your point about God's view concerning those that are lost.

Greg Boyd (yeah, him again) made the point that our model of God influences the kind of relationship we have with him.

For example, if your model supposes a wrath-filled, your-sin-disapproving God, then your relationship with him is likely to reflect that. Father, yes. But stern Victorian type rather than fun-loving, cuddle-loving, cool dad (another model)

(A mate of mine was in the middle east on hols. Sitting at an open air cafe, he watched a young boy run up to his dad, jump into his lap screaming delightedly, 'Abba, Abba')

When you 'take my point', what do you mean? Do you mean you agree that for God, the loss of a potential child/bride is an agony?

If so, how do you reconcile his agony with your stated detachment?

Don't get me wrong: I don't spend my time weeping over the lost. But perhaps if I more had the mind of Christ I would.

El_Duderino 09

hinault wrote: »

Ah, finally.
You're entirely free to believe that there is no afterlife.

As I said to you already no one else will gain or lose by you holding that view.

Of course. I didn't fall for the fear based sales pitch and buy into the product on sale. so there is no transaction in my case.

El_Duderino 09

antiskeptic wrote: »

But they can assert that since you believe in heavenly reward, you are motivated by personal gain - even though they think it's all baloney.

I suppose it's something of a commentary on them that they have such issue with the idea of someone else being that concerned about their faith/fate. Doctors can be genuinely concerned, psychologists genuinely concerned, the police can be genuinely concerned

But not a believer. We're just doin' our duty.

yeah. I've been using the analogy of an unpaid volunteer. People do things for all finds of reasons.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

People do things for all sorts of reasons including (but not limited to) money, status, social approval, sense of satisfaction and personal pride. You might be selling for similar reasons to the bloke volunteering as a sales assistant in a charity shop.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Greg Boyd (yeah, him again) made the point that our model of God influences the kind of relationship we have with him.

For example, if your model supposes a wrath-filled, your-sin-disapproving God, then your relationship with him is likely to reflect that. Father, yes. But stern Victorian type rather than fun-loving, cuddle-loving, cool dad (another model)

(A mate of mine was in the middle east on hols. Sitting at an open air cafe, he watched a young boy run up to his dad, jump into his lap screaming delightedly, 'Abba, Abba')

When you 'take my point', what do you mean? Do you mean you agree that for God, the loss of a potential child/bride is an agony?

If so, how do you reconcile his agony with your stated detachment?

Don't get me wrong: I don't spend my time weeping over the lost. But perhaps if I more had the mind of Christ I would.

By taking your point, I agree that God does grieve for the lost.

In respect of the other point I made, the "Good News" gets communicated. There are those people who will choose to reject the "Good News" after hearing it.
There is no point investing more time and more energy discussing the "Good News" with those who reject same.

The reason why there is no point in investing more energy/time, is because that same energy/time could be better invested communicating the "Good News" with those who potentially might accept the message.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

By taking your point, I agree that God does grieve for the lost.

In respect of the other point I made, the "Good News" gets communicated. There are those people who will choose to reject the "Good News" after hearing it.
There is no point investing more time and more energy discussing the "Good News" with those who reject same.

The reason why there is no point in investing more energy/time, is because that same energy/time could be better invested communicating the "Good News" with those who potentially might accept the message.

One strike and you're out?

I'm not so familiar with the Catholic view on the reasons why a man might reject the message. Are all men considered equally capable at all times. Say you had:

- an 22 year old Irish man educated in Trinity College

- a 55 year old farm labourer in China, fed on a diet of 4 year plans and great leap forwards by the.athiest regieme there

- a devout Hindu

Would they all be as capable of hearing, evaluating amd accepting/rejecting the message?

If yes, could you.explain the mechanism whereby the gospel message levels the playing field?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

One strike and you're out?

I'm not so familiar with the Catholic view on the reasons why a man might reject the message. Are all men considered equally capable at all times. Say you had:

- an 22 year old Irish man educated in Trinity College

- a 55 year old farm labourer in China, fed on a diet of 4 year plans and great leap forwards by the.athiest regieme there

- a devout Hindu

Would they all be as capable of hearing, evaluating amd accepting/rejecting the message?

If yes, could you.explain the mechanism whereby the gospel message levels the playing field?

Not necessarily one strike and your out.

There is no "scientific" or "axiomatic" formula for how long someone should try to persuade another to adopt the message, in Catholicism.

In Catholicism, there are concepts such as "invincible ignorance". One property of the invincible ignorance concept is that people - through no fault of their own - may never have heard of Jesus Christ and His ministry. This may be because they live in a part of the world with no contact with Christianity whatsoever.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Not necessarily one strike and your out.

There is no "scientific" or "axiomatic" formula for how long someone should try to persuade another to adopt the message, in Catholicism.

Fair enough. I suppose though that in giving one message and moving on, at least you could be said to be fair and impartial.

However, the blocks a person might have will differ from one to the other - say the one has good reason to be antagonistic to the messengers (say someone leathered to within an inch of their lives by some violent Christian brothers, or if they had overly strict religious parents). Wouldn't perservence be the safer option in light of ignorance of the persons inner life?

On the matter of persuasion. What form does that take? Apologetics: the Church traces its lineage back to Christ or arguing the historicity of Jesus, etc? These strike me as weak since there is no killer argument for any of the denominations (my own position included) that could be grasped by the man in the street. Theologians differ, sinners damned?

Or is it that the gospel itself does the work (say its talk of our sin state triggering inner knowledge that people have about themselves, whatever about their outward, vehement denial?

In Catholicism, there are concepts such as "invincible ignorance". One property of the invincible ignorance concept is that people - through no fault of their own - may never have heard of Jesus Christ and His ministry. This may be because they live in a part of the world with no contact with Christianity whatsoever.

Like Abraham 😉. How were, now that I think of it, OT people saved when no Christianity?

How do you think someone who never heard of Christ is saved? How does the mechanism differ?

Could a person (say the aforementioned "justly antagonistic to Christianity") who lives in Ireland be saved by the same mechanism that saves a person who never heard of Christ? If not, why does the 'never heard because Christianity never arrived at their shore' cohort differ in essence from the ' were rendered deaf to Christianity by (supposed) agents of his message' cohort.

A few more questions than I intended to ask!

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair enough. I suppose though that in giving one message and moving on, at least you could be said to be fair and impartial.

However, the blocks a person might have will differ from one to the other - say the one has good reason to be antagonistic to the messengers (say someone leathered to within an inch of their lives by some violent Christian brothers, or if they had overly strict religious parents). Wouldn't perservence be the safer option in light of ignorance of the persons inner life?

On the matter of persuasion. What form does that take? Apologetics: the Church traces its lineage back to Christ or arguing the historicity of Jesus, etc? These strike me as weak since there is no killer argument for any of the denominations (my own position included) that could be grasped by the man in the street. Theologians differ, sinners damned?

Or is it that the gospel itself does the work (say its talk of our sin state triggering inner knowledge that people have about themselves, whatever about their outward, vehement denial?





Like Abraham ��. How were, now that I think of it, OT people saved when no Christianity?

How do you think someone who never heard of Christ is saved? How does the mechanism differ?

Could a person (say the aforementioned "justly antagonistic to Christianity") who lives in Ireland be saved by the same mechanism that saves a person who never heard of Christ? If not, why does the 'never heard because Christianity never arrived at their shore' cohort differ in essence from the ' were rendered deaf to Christianity by (supposed) agents of his message' cohort.

A few more questions than I intended to ask!

Obviously different people will have different capacities, different histories and different dispositions, to assimilate the "Good News".

The Catholic Church has taught that in the first instance the best teachers of the Good News are parents with their children. In other words the best time and the best means to communicate is between parent and child, through example and through discussing the events and lessons in the Bible.
School then should re-enforce what has been taught and naturally the Church should also re-enforce that teaching.

I was educated in a school run by a great Catholic missionary order. I spoke with the priests who taught us about their work on the missions. These men worked in Africa and South America in 1950's and 1960's.These men served in locations of great material deprivation. Their advice about conversion was "persuade the local chieftan/witchdoctor first and the rest will follow!"

In terms of the OT people. The Catholic Church teaches (it's not dogma) that prophets such as Moses etc never knew of Jesus but they knew about God.
It is therefore reasonable for the Church to surmise that if Moses was alive during Jesus ministry, that Moses etc would have become Catholic.

ChrisJ84

hinault wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches (it's not dogma) that prophets such as Moses etc never knew of Jesus but they knew about God.
It is therefore reasonable for the Church to surmise that if Moses was alive during Jesus ministry, that Moses etc would have become Catholic.

Interesting. How come the apostles didn't become Catholic then?

Bishop of hope

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Interesting. How come the apostles didn't become Catholic then?

Jesus himself was Jewish, was crucified as a jew.
St Peter is recognised as the first Catholic according to my (limited) teaching.