Christians: Saving the Damned?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Weren't Christians already saved?

Exactly. From an evangelical perspective, one should save the 100 atheists on the assumption that the 4 Christians will go to heaven and the atheists would still have a chance to convert. But I'm not an evangelical.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Vaeolet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Weren't Christians already saved?

THAT depends entirely on which flavour of Christian one asks.

[Cinjin]

Am I allowed to turn my truck onto the tracks and race toward the oncoming train, sacrificing my life to save all 104 people?

If so, then... great!

I would save all of our resident fucktard christians, but not at the expense of my life. My son doesn't deserve to grow up without a father just so I can vainly be remembered as a hero. Plus, it's unlikely that they would help me if the roles were reversed. I'd probably die while they were praying to their god to do something useful.

[Welsh cake]

I'd choose the lot that have the greatest probability of survival.

I can't save a whopping 100 atheists, a 100 Muslims or a 100 Christians from certain death at once. I'm just one man with two arms at the end of the day. I want to save all 104 endangered persons, but reality is a bitch so its not viable or realistically possible. I realise I can't save just one Christian from one group, or one atheist from the other, its all or nothing. I either save them or perish trying.

The smaller group have the greater chances to survive since I *may* be able to save all of the 4 in the atheist group.

What you all fail to see is the illusion of control you are exercising in this scenario.

What you fail to understand is that this is a thought experiment in ethics.

You fail to understand yourself also, because you don't seem to know what you would do when confronted with this hypothetical scenario, what impulses you'd be feeling, or which party to ultimately save and why.

No one is going to call you a jackass if you justify why you chose the 100 or the 4. I won't criticise you if you can't answer it because the dilemma and the consequentiality of allowing either 4 or a 100 people to die is too much to bear for you.

HOWEVER, we ARE going to call you out though if you REFUSE to answer a simple question and draw the line at some point. It tells us you're either apathetic or have hidden prejudices toward either group.

[genkaus]

As most busses can only seat 60, a bus with 100 people in it is either going to be too big to move with my truck or too heavy. The best thing then would be break the windows on the van and get the christians to help break into the bus and off load it.

For the time it takes to hook up and winch a one of the vehicles off the tracks the 4 could be saved right away and if all 5 people were to create a exit point on this super bus, most of them would saved as well.

Faith does not play apart in this scenario. What should be considered is saving those who you know you can save and getting them to help save everyone else lest everyone dies if you try and save the big prize.

So, you are changing your answer now? Its no longer - "do not participate"? How very Christian of you.

[KichigaiNeko]

Ummmmeeerrrr, THIS Poll was for the theists only??

[Polaris]

If there were 100 Christians and just one atheist, I would save the atheist.

[Cyberman]

Save from what?

[Polaris]

Save from what?

Death.

[Cyberman]

Xtians don't die?