WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[jakswan]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

[Alien]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

Silly post.

[jakswan]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

Silly post.

Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.

[Alien]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

Silly post.

Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?

[Sebastian Toe]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

Silly post.

Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?

I'm out of here. If anyone wants to follow anything up, I'll be on the other thread.

 

[Sebastian Toe]

...

What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? 

The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"

Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...

I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.

What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?

I plead insanity.
What on earth gives you the impression that you should be taking part in a thread for believers (on the wrong board)?

 
Who made you the thread policeman?

[Owlswing]

...

What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me? 

The thread title is "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?"

Correct ,the thread title is as you state, however Sass specifically asks in the opening post...

I thought I would ask what the believers actually believe saves them.

What on earth gives you the impression that the OP was addressed to me, old fruit?

I plead insanity.
What on earth gives you the impression that you should be taking part in a thread for believers (on the wrong board)?

 
Who made you the thread policeman?

The same person who tells him everything else in this life - God!

[Sassy]

Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.

Because another member of the board asked me to.

[Owlswing]

Why?
The Faith Sharing Area is not a place for open debate. This board is.

Because another member of the board asked me to.

Oh Sassy, will you do anything that other members of the borad ask you to do?

If so, will you please . . . no, no, no, I'll get modded if I complete this request regardless of how much I really, really want you to do it!

[jakswan]

No true Scotsman bingo bumper payout.

Silly post.

Nope, tell me how this thread isn't a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You want to disprove something you have asserted without evidence? Really?

If you don't get it then no do not bother. Obtuse much?

[ippy]

Another potty thread.

Ippy

[Andy]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

[wigginhall]

This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.

Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy. 

So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.   

Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.

Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy. 

So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.   

Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.

That's interesting. We know that altruistic behaviours are rewarded with a dopamine kick - maybe there's something of that behind the theistic stories of being rewarded in an afterlife for behaving as the faith requires?

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

[wigginhall]

Hi Wiggs,

This reminds me of the famous discussion in Matthew 25, 'For I was hungry, and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink ...', which has the pay-off line, 'when you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me'.

Here belief is not mentioned, but acts of charity towards those who are needy. 

So here there seems to be a sense of salvation flowing not from belief, but from loving acts towards the needy, which are interpreted as towards Christ himself.   

Of course, this can be reconciled with more belief-oriented ideas, but it still stands out as a different kind of theology.

That's interesting. We know that altruistic behaviours are rewarded with a dopamine kick - maybe there's something of that behind the theistic stories of being rewarded in an afterlife for behaving as the faith requires?

Possibly.   And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian.  In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none.   So it's doctrinally minimalist.  But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.

[BeRational]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

[Andy]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

Ok, then under whatever criteria you think it takes in order to be saved, who is getting saved?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alien,

No-one is morally perfect...

Speak for yerself mate 

[ippy]

Alien,

No-one is morally perfect...

Speak for yerself mate 

Two of us?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Possibly.   And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian.  In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none.   So it's doctrinally minimalist.  But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.

Well, the extent to which anything is an "authentic Jesus saying" is moot I'd have though, but the theistic codification and encouragement of altruism is very common isn't it? Most seem to have rules about helping your neighbour, honouring your parents etc at least somewhere built in to the fabric of their dogmas. That's the genius of religious belief I think - there's just enough to kind of make sense before they overreach into claims that don't. "Be nice and you'll be rewarded for it" for example seems reasonable enough - after all, I do tend to feel pretty good when I've brought in the shopping for my aged neighbour. Then comes the overreach - "and so by extension you'll get to go to heaven, enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins etc if you behave virtuously".

The sleight of hand is to elide from just enough real world experience to the fantastical claims, whereas without at least some kind of experiential footing the fantastical claims alone would have no traction.

Something like that anyway. 

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

[Alien]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

It's quite clear I was talking within the realms of what is possible, so I don't know why you felt the need to say neither are possible.

OK, please help me here. Please give me an example of someone who is or has been as "morally perfect as can possibly be".

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

Ok, then under whatever criteria you think it takes in order to be saved, who is getting saved?

Having recognised their sinfulness, their just judgement and need for God's forgiveness, the person asks for it and resolves to live God's way (the equivalent of getting into a lifeboat).

[BeRational]

Person A is as morally perfect as can possibly be, yet doesn't recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.
Person B is as immorally perfect as can possibly be, yet does recognise that they deserve god's judgement and that they require god's forgiveness for their sins.

Who is getting saved?

Neither description is possible. To be as "morally perfect as can possibly be" would mean that they are morally perfect. No-one is morally perfect (except God). As for B, no-one is as "immorally perfect as can possibly be". If they were morally perfect, they would not need saving.

Also, it is not just a recognition of deserving judgement and forgiveness. That is necessary, but not sufficient. People on the Titanic recognised they needed saving, but it was not a lot of help for many of them.

And yet your god allows evil to exist and  fails to stop pain and suffering even though you think it could.

You think some things are always objectively morally wrong, and yet your god allows them the happen.

In what way then is your god moral?

Those things which are objectively morally wrong, God will not do. The one we talk about most here is "Torturing a child to death just for fun". Note the "just" in there, as in "solely", "for the sole purpose". If God allows an evil, it is for a greater good.

But you also think it is morally wrong to NOT stop these things happening when you could easily stop them.

Your god does not stop them, therefore he is immoral.

If you think otherwise, explain how it is moral.

If you cannot do that then you are just hoping that your god is good, and you are just guessing.

[Alien]

Wiggs,

Possibly.   And it has been cited as a possible authentic Jesus saying, since it's not particularly Christian.  In other words, if later writers were fabricating stuff to put in his mouth, they would not fabricate this, as it could apply to anybody, of any religion or none.   So it's doctrinally minimalist.  But of course, you can interpret it everywhichaway.

Well, the extent to which anything is an "authentic Jesus saying" is moot I'd have though, but the theistic codification and encouragement of altruism is very common isn't it? Most seem to have rules about helping your neighbour, honouring your parents etc at least somewhere built in to the fabric of their dogmas. That's the genius of religious belief I think - there's just enough to kind of make sense before they overreach into claims that don't. "Be nice and you'll be rewarded for it" for example seems reasonable enough - after all, I do tend to feel pretty good when I've brought in the shopping for my aged neighbour. Then comes the overreach - "and so by extension you'll get to go to heaven, enjoy the pleasures of 72 virgins etc if you behave virtuously".

The sleight of hand is to elide from just enough real world experience to the fantastical claims, whereas without at least some kind of experiential footing the fantastical claims alone would have no traction.

Something like that anyway.

Some here get a bit confused about the difference between Islam and Christianity. In case that happens here, the 72 virgins bit is an Islamic idea, not a Christian one.