Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

There was no "loophole" established. What was established was God's infinitely righteous justice and unfailing love since God in Christ fulfilled his own law in two ways: By keeping it perfectly and also fulfilling the law's penalty requirements for all sinners who trust in Christ in their salvation from the power, from the penalty and ultimately from the presence of all sin for all eternity.

That's the loophole.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

That's the loophole.

But it's not. A genuine loophole is an ambiguity or omission in the text through which a a statute, contract or obligation may be evaded. A genuine loophole is a means of escape. But there is no escape from divine justice and God proved this to the world by taking on flesh -- by becoming a human being so that he could pay the penalty of sin, which is death. Christ didn't run or escape from the penalty. He paid it in full by suffering God's wrath on behalf of his Father's people! He paid it so that he could save many!

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But it's not. A genuine loophole is an ambiguity or omission in the text through which a a statute, contract or obligation may be evaded. A genuine loophole is a means of escape. But there is no escape from divine justice and God proved this to the world by taking on flesh -- by becoming a human being so that he could pay the penalty of sin, which is death. Christ didn't run or escape from the penalty. He paid it in full by suffering God's wrath on behalf of his Father's people! He paid it so that he could save many!

You're equivocating again. Attach whatever meaning to "loophole" that you like or choose some other word.

Adolf Eichmann engineers the murder of 8,000,000 people. But he is a true believer in Jesus and on the gallows his last words are "I believe in God." His reward for his belief is an eternal paradise. I spend my whole life doing good but my last words are "I don't know" and for that I am punished with eternal fire. To claim and believe that these two outcomes are just makes a mockery of justice.

Christianity teaches that belief without proof is the only thing that matters. You can commit the most vile heinous crimes and still be rewarded with eternal paradise. You can devote your life to good works but still be punished with eternal fire. Christianity teaches that God has hemorrhoids and wants his ass kissed every day. Christianity teaches that God behaves like a child and throws tantrums if he doesn't get his way.

Christianity teaches that God is the very personification of evil.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You're equivocating again. Attach whatever meaning to "loophole" that you like or choose some other word.

Adolf Eichmann engineers the murder of 8,000,000 people. But he is a true believer in Jesus and on the gallows his last words are "I believe in God." His reward for his belief is an eternal paradise. I spend my whole life doing good but my last words are "I don't know" and for that I am punished with eternal fire. To claim and believe that these two outcomes are just makes a mockery of justice.

Christianity teaches that belief without proof is the only thing that matters. You can commit the most vile heinous crimes and still be rewarded with eternal paradise. You can devote your life to good works but still be punished with eternal fire. Christianity teaches that God has hemorrhoids and wants his ass kissed every day. Christianity teaches that God behaves like a child and throws tantrums if he doesn't get his way.

Christianity teaches that God is the very personification of evil.

Actually, in my last post I wrote it to reflect a dictionary definition of "loophole". But when you don't like what I wrote, you say that I'm equivocating?

Secondly, "deathbed" or "foxhole" confessions of faith seem to be extremely rare both in scripture and in life-- so rare in fact, there is only one such conversion recorded in all scripture -- the repentant thief on the cross.

Thirdly, scripture teaches that there is plenty of evidence for God. See Romans 1. Also, when did you convert to agnosticism from hard-core atheism? Your faith is not in your ignorance of spiritual truth but rather in yourself by playing God, which you must do to deny Him or deny the existence of any evidence for him. Your faith is in your supposed omniscience of all things in the universe. In order top deny Him or any evidence for him, you must become Him, which is why atheism is a self-defeating world view.

Fourthly, define what you mean by "good". Good by what or whose standard? Your own no doubt? After all, you Shirley are a moral relativist, aren't you?

Next, doing or being "good" is NOT the biblical standard for entering the kingdom of heaven. Righteousness is!

And finally, if you think so highly of yourself as to believe that you have done all this "good" in this world, then Shirley you're no better than the self-righteous Pharisees who also had a very high moral opinion of themselves; yet Jesus taught that unless one's righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees he would in no wise enter the kingdom of God.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Actually, in my last post I wrote it to reflect a dictionary definition of "loophole". But when you don't like what I wrote, you say that I'm equivocating?

You are equivocating. Your strategy is to try to control the direction of the discussion toward a dictionary definition and away from the main thrust of Dillahunty's opus. You ignore Socrates advice and the fact that dictionary definitions are merely the opinions of their publishers.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Secondly, "deathbed" or "foxhole" confessions of faith seem to be extremely rare both in scripture and in life-- so rare in fact, there is only one such conversion recorded in all scripture -- the repentant thief on the cross.

So what? Who's to say that Eichmann was not a Christian all his life? Hitler declared (in Mein Kampf I believe) that he was doing God's work.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thirdly, scripture teaches that there is plenty of evidence for God.

Of course it does. Is that not to be expected?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, when did you convert to agnosticism from hard-core atheism?

You miss the point entirely, which is that "I don't know" is just as unacceptable as "I don't believe." Christianity requires blind faith without evidence.

Also, atheist is a label you attached to me in #5836 of the old thread.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Your faith is not in your ignorance of spiritual truth but rather in yourself by playing God, which you must do to deny Him or deny the existence of any evidence for him. Your faith is in your supposed omniscience of all things in the universe. In order top deny Him or any evidence for him, you must become Him, which is why atheism is a self-defeating world view.

A total non-sequitur and misrepresentation of my position. Your argument is that the only method available is exhaustive search, a variation of the hackneyed "where you there" argument. That's a fallacy. Logic provides other, more reliable methods to determine truth. Do you think one has to measure every triangle in existence to prove the Pythagorean Theorem?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Fourthly, define what you mean by "good". Good by what or whose standard? Your own no doubt? After all, you Shirley are a moral relativist, aren't you?

If by "moral relativist" you mean I do not accept the existence of an objective morality then that is correct. All morality is subjective. I have pointed out before that the "standard" is Darwinian. Our subjective sense of morality provides a survival advantage to the species.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Next, doing or being "good" is NOT the biblical standard for entering the kingdom of heaven. Righteousness is!

Dillahunty's point exactly. Must you dwell on the obvious?

Originally Posted by boxcar

And finally, if you think so highly of yourself as to believe that you have done all this "good" in this world, then Shirley you're no better than the self-righteous Pharisees who also had a very high moral opinion of themselves; ...

It's obvious that you have a very high moral opinion of yourself. What's wrong with being a Pharisee? They were simply on one side of a theological debate. They were good people so far as I can tell. See Acts 23:6

If you want an example besides myself try Mark Twain, an atheist known for his philanthropy.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... yet Jesus taught that unless one's righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees he would in no wise enter the kingdom of God.

Why should I care what Jesus, a fictional character, taught. Even if he were not fictional I disagree with him on several points. I certainly do not think he rose from the dead.

I have more to say on this but right now I have other obligations I must address.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You are equivocating. Your strategy is to try to control the direction of the discussion toward a dictionary definition and away from the main thrust of Dillahunty's opus. You ignore Socrates advice and the fact that dictionary definitions are merely the opinions of their publishers.

His opus is nonsense. Plus words have meaning. Once we ignore or twist or distort the plain, ordinary meanings of words, all objective basis for intelligent discussion disappears. You clearly said that God created a "loophole" and that simply isn't the case. Romans 3 makes it crystal clear that by the Father sending his Son into this world to die for sinners, God very clearly demonstrated his infinite and perfect justice to the world. Either Christ paid for you sins or you will pay for your own. No loopholes.

So what? Who's to say that Eichmann was not a Christian all his life? Hitler declared (in Mein Kampf I believe) that he was doing God's work.

And Jesus taught that his disciples would know false prophets, false teachers and other sundry false professors of faith by their fruit. Anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit is a "good tree" and can only bear good fruit. Since both of the above bore only bad fruit, this is proof positive that they were rotten trees who never experienced the transforming work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. Their actions and lives reflected their unregenerated, depraved, evil hearts from which those actions flowed.

Of course it does. Is that not to be expected?

Yes, of course, especially since it is true.

You miss the point entirely, which is that "I don't know" is just as unacceptable as "I don't believe." Christianity requires blind faith without evidence.

Yes, it is unacceptable. And, sadly, many agnostics like to brag about their ignorance not realizing that it is a fundamental sympton of man's falleness (depravity, spiritual blindness, etc.). As scripture states, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hos 4:6).

And Christianity is a sighted, rational faith.

Also, atheist is a label you attached to me in #5836 of the old thread.

Only after your confession of same.

[b]A total non-sequitur and misrepresentation of my position. Your argument is that the only method available is exhaustive search, a variation of the hackneyed "where you there" argument. That's a fallacy. Logic provides other, more reliable methods to determine truth. Do you think one has to measure every triangle in existence to prove the Pythagorean Theorem?
If by "moral relativist" you mean I do not accept the existence of an objective morality then that is correct. All morality is subjective. I have pointed out before that the "standard" is Darwinian. Our subjective sense of morality provides a survival advantage to the species.
Dillahunty's point exactly. Must you dwell on the obvious? [/quote]

And I have proved in two different ways that all morality is not subjective. I have shown that moral relativism is itself a self-defeating philosophy. I have also proved that objective morality exists since murdering another human being for fun or amusement is absolutely wrong always-- no exceptions! Therefore, absolute morality exists. To deny its existence is analgous to postualating that absolute truth doesn't exist.

And your lame attempt at another analogy is laugable. We know that triangles exist. But you're claiming that God doesn't by pushing the argument back one level and saying that no evicence for him exist in the entire universe. Sounds like you're waxing pretty omniscient and omnipresent to me.

Dillahunty's point is a lame one. What better way to exress the infinite holiness of God and utter sinfulness of man than for God give his Law to a nation of people? The Law at once proves the holiness of God and man's total depravity since he's not able to keep it perfectly. While God cannot sin, man cannot not sin! Also, another purpose of the Law was to drive hopeless, lost sinners to God to seek his great salvation.

It's obvious that you have a very high moral opinion of yourself. What's wrong with being a Pharisee? They were simply on one side of a theological debate. They were good people so far as I can tell. See Acts 23:6

Again...define "good". Jesus thought the religious leaders of his day were the sons of the devil. But it you think that is good...then so be it. And if you think that murdering Jesus was a good act, then I must question your Darwinian-Relativistic morality.

Paul was Pharisee who converted to Christianity. And he wasn't the only one recorded in the NT either. However, this doesn't change the fact that most of the religious leaders of his day were apostates -- covenant breakers.

If you want an example besides myself try Mark Twain, an atheist known for his philanthropy.

But neither of you have ever obeyed the two greatest commandements upon which the entire Law of Moses hinges; therefore, he died a sinner, as you will if you dont' repent and believe the Gospel.

Why should I care what Jesus, a fictional character, taught. Even if he were not fictional I disagree with him on several points. I certainly do not think he rose from the dead.

You should care since he will judge all the righteous and all the wicked who have ever lived on this earth upon his return.

And you have yet to produce on ancient writing that called Jesus' existence into question. It's very easy to sit in your easy chair thousands of years after the fact and boldly proclaim his non-existence, just as easy as it to play forensic scientist by attempting to piece together how you think the universe came into existence.

have more to say on this but right now I have other obligations I must address.

Then by all means fulfill your obligations.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have also proved that objective morality exists since murdering another human being for fun or amusement is absolutely wrong always-- no exceptions! Therefore, absolute morality exists.

I agree that the vast majority of human beings on this planet would say that that is always wrong, but that does not make it objective. It is considered wrong because of natural selection. Remember that natural selection operates on populations, not individuals. As a population we recognize that an individual who commits murder for fun represents a danger to the population. We are repelled by such behavior and this repulsion exists because of natural selection. When we identify such an individual the population hunts him/her down and either kills him or locks him up. The fact that the population agrees that this behavior is evil does not change the fact that this is a subjective judgement. The universe at large does not give one big damn whether any human lives or dies, nor how they came to die.

Originally Posted by boxcar

To deny its existence is analgous[sic] to postualating[sic] that absolute truth doesn't exist.

As I have explained before, quantum theory says that absolute truth does not exist (the uncertainty principle).

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And Jesus taught that his disciples would know false prophets, false teachers and other sundry false professors of faith by their fruit. Anyone indwelt by the Holy Spirit is a "good tree" and can only bear good fruit. Since both of the above bore only bad fruit, this is proof positive that they were rotten trees who never experienced the transforming work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. Their actions and lives reflected their unregenerated[sic], depraved, evil hearts from which those actions flowed.

Are you saying that Eichmann's sin was unforgivable? That disbelief is not the only unforgivable sin? Are you saying that the clergyman who tended to Eichmann's spiritual needs was wasting his time?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you have yet to produce on ancient writing that called Jesus' existence into question.

Do you believe Poseidon exists? Or existed?

I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you do not believe in Poseidon. Can you produce an ancient writing that calls Poseidon's existence into question? If so, name it. If not, then you apply a standard to Jesus which you do not apply to Poseidon. That is special pleading.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Do you believe Poseidon exists? Or existed?

I'll go out on a limb here and assume that you do not believe in Poseidon. Can you produce an ancient writing that calls Poseidon's existence into question? If so, name it. If not, then you apply a standard to Jesus which you do not apply to Poseidon. That is special pleading.

The Greeks were well known for their multiple gods and goddesses, of which there were many. And those gods and goddesses are considered to be mythical by virtually the entire world today, very much unlike Jesus. Only a tiny minority deny his existence, as you have. The Greeks were were known (and still are) throughout the world for their magical and fanciful mythologies, whereas the Jews were noted primarily for propagating monotheism (when they weren't too occupied, of course, with worshiping idols).

https://www.thoughtco.com/did-the-gr...r-myths-120390

Also, Plato looked askance at the human-like gods that characterized the Greek pantheon.

In fact, to show how duplicitous you are, you questioned my judgment of the Pharisees moral/spiritual condition. You even defended them, saying their only fault was a difference in theology (of course without telling us with whose theology they differed). Yet...there is even far less said about the Pharisees' existence in ancient literature than there is about Jesus'. So...why do you believe the Pharisees exited with such scant evidence, yet Jesus didn't?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I agree that the vast majority of human beings on this planet would say that that is always wrong, but that does not make it objective. It is considered wrong because of natural selection. Remember that natural selection operates on populations, not individuals. As a population we recognize that an individual who commits murder for fun represents a danger to the population. We are repelled by such behavior and this repulsion exists because of natural selection. When we identify such an individual the population hunts him/her down and either kills him or locks him up. The fact that the population agrees that this behavior is evil does not change the fact that this is a subjective judgement. The universe at large does not give one big damn whether any human lives or dies, nor how they came to die.
As I have explained before, quantum theory says that absolute truth does not exist (the uncertainty principle).

But that theory cannot possibly be absolutely true, can it? Therefore, if it is not absolutely true, it is a self-defeating theory and as such I have every reason to doubt its value. At best, that theory is mere conjecture -- an opinion -- not even an informed one! And never forget: Moral Relativism, the only other alternative to objective morality, itself is a self-defeating philosophy, as I have proved in the past.

Also, you're all wet about "natural selection"!

Natural selection acts for the good of the species. The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest. Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population. Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.

Since cold-blooded murder for fun, enjoyment or amusement is always wrong, then this conclusion is absolutely true. Therefore, objective, absolute truth exists. Any universal rejection of a behavior or, for that matter, a universal acceptance of one makes it absolutely true.

[boxcar]

Here's a very interesting story about a Catholic couple in East Lansing, MI. who own a farm and were barred from selling their produce on public property.

Judge Suspends City’s Ban of Farmers Over Their Marriage Views

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/15/ju...campaign=Top5& mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTUdZNE9ETmpOV1kwT1RKaSIsInQiOiJJSG F5dkVHUDRNZjhDSWJ1OE03aGFnRFc3NHdCVzcwK2loOU9GNXBk eWxIOVVHV0VYTVRQUXBFVkVucml0TmZ2VVwvSVBUc3JRaEtoeH BNbHd5OXVkWnh4M1VSSGNrcjZUdUl0cW5HVXpkbFpYY1wvc0hw SHFSYkhhQlk0ZnhJTWRlIn0%3D

The details to this story are sketchy at best but it appears that the city of East Lansing came down on them after they simply posted their views about same sex marriage on Facebook and that, apparently, they would not use their farm as a venue to celebrate this type of marriage because of their religious beliefs. So...why do I post this kind of story here? Because the commerce sanctions placed upon this couple, as punishment for their beliefs, brought to mind this passage in Revelation:

Rev 13:16-17
16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand, or on their forehead, 17 and he provides that no one should be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.
NASB

This couple's story is but a microcosm of what is to come. There are many fanciful, creative interpretations of this passage by eschatology students, most especially of the premillennial school. Many think that this "mark" will be a physical device -- perhaps an electronic scannable implant that the "beast" will be force upon people if they wish to engage in commerce. But I have reason to believe that the "mark" more likely symbolizes our true spiritual relationship to God and our outward behavior. I base this interpretation on this OT passage:

Deut 6:6-8
6 And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8 And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
NASB

"These words" are, of course, the Law of Moses in the context. This Law being "on your heart" means that God's truth governs your mind's thought life (which is the significance of the Law being on the forehead) and "on your hand" (which symbolizes our actions -- what we do). This, then is the significance to binding God's Law as a spiritual sign or "mark" on the forehead and hand. And this interpretation is reinforced by this next text:

Ps 119:11
11 Thy word I have treasured in my heart,
That I may not sin against Thee.
NASB

Even in v.16 in this long Psalm, the psalmist wrote: "I shall delight in Thy statutes; I shall not forget Thy word." Of course, it is with our mind that we bring things to our recall or memory.

Getting back, then, to the Revelation passage, the "beast" is Satan or the antichrist -- the Lawless One Paul spoke of. And Satan is the god of this world, and he is the one who energizes and instigates all godless, lawless conduct on this planet. All unbelievers bear his "mark" (his lawless and ungodly philosophy). Conversely, the Christians who do not run with these lawless ones, who do not subscribe to their godless philosophy or practices (as this Catholic couple didn't with city officials) will be punished by the world. They will be forbidden to buy or sell -- to engage in any commerce.

For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, behold the signs of the times.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Greeks were well known for their multiple gods and goddesses, of which there were many. And those gods and goddesses are considered to be mythical by virtually the entire world today, very much unlike Jesus. Only a tiny minority deny his existence, as you have.

Argumentum ad populum! I.e., appeal to the people. Truth is not determined by a vote. At one time the germ theory was accepted by a minority of doctors.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Greeks were were known (and still are) throughout the world for their magical and fanciful mythologies, whereas the Jews were noted primarily for propagating monotheism (when they weren't too occupied, of course, with worshiping idols).

The Babylonians were also known for propagating monotheism. In fact that's where Jews got their monotheism. Before the Babylonian captivity the Jews were polytheistic. Yahweh was their version of Zeus. Many Jews worshiped Baal, not Yahweh. Some even worshiped Set, an Egyptian god. (Set is sometimes represented as a snake and thus might be the source for the serpent in the Garden of Eden story.) Archeologists have found many idols of Ashirah (Jewish version of Aphrodite, goddess of sex) in pre-captivity excavations.

Originally Posted by boxcar

In fact, to show how duplicitous you are, you questioned my judgment of the Pharisees moral/spiritual condition. You even defended them, saying their only fault was a difference in theology (of course without telling us with whose theology they differed).

The Pharisees differed with the theology of the Sadducees of course. I'm surprised you don't know that. The Pharisees also supported the Herod family as rightful kings of Israel. Of course the writers of the gospels had cast the Herods as the villains in their story so it is natural that they should also cast the Pharisees as villains.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yet...there is even far less said about the Pharisees' existence in ancient literature than there is about Jesus'.

Simply not true. There is considerable ancient evidence for the existence of the Pharissees. Josephus for example. The Pharisees also had political connections with Pompey the Great, Mark Anthony and Octavian (Augustus Caesar) so I suggest you look for them in the many biographies of these persons. I think they are also mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees exist today as Rabbinic Judaism.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Argumentum ad populum! I.e., appeal to the people. Truth is not determined by a vote. At one time the germ theory was accepted by a minority of doctors.
The Babylonians were also known for propagating monotheism. In fact that's where Jews got their monotheism. Before the Babylonian captivity the Jews were polytheistic. Yahweh was their version of Zeus. Many Jews worshiped Baal, not Yahweh. Some even worshiped Set, an Egyptian god. (Set is sometimes represented as a snake and thus might be the source for the serpent in the Garden of Eden story.) Archeologists have found many idols of Ashirah (Jewish version of Aphrodite, goddess of sex) in pre-captivity excavations.
The Pharisees differed with the theology of the Sadducees of course. I'm surprised you don't know that. The Pharisees also supported the Herod family as rightful kings of Israel. Of course the writers of the gospels had cast the Herods as the villains in their story so it is natural that they should also cast the Pharisees as villains.
Simply not true. There is considerable ancient evidence for the existence of the Pharissees. Josephus for example. The Pharisees also had political connections with Pompey the Great, Mark Anthony and Octavian (Augustus Caesar) so I suggest you look for them in the many biographies of these persons. I think they are also mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Pharisees exist today as Rabbinic Judaism.

I know truth is not determined by a vote. You might want to remember that the next time AGW is discussed in the same breath with the "consensus of science". Or the next time evolution is discussed.

You wanted evidence that a certain Greek god's existence was never called into question. I gave it to you. Plato, Socrates and others dismissed them entirely. So...now it's your turn. Give me some ancient person of note that dismissed Christ's existence. Should be easy peasy for you.

Virtually the entire world was polytheistic, save for the godly line of Seth. Israel was the unique nation on the planet in terms of its religion. However, because the Jews shared the same depraved nature as the rest of the world, they were largely apostate and their worship devolved into the polytheism of the surrounding pagan nations for the most part.

From 3000 BC to 539 BC, the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians all worshipped pretty much the same set of gods, despite their cultural differences. ... The Hittites arrived later, around 2500 BC, and had different gods because they were Indo-Europeans, but they were polytheistic too.

https://www.google.com/search?source....0.ARSlwmMd7pw

I know more about the Pharisees and Sadducees than you think. But their differences are a non sequitur, especially since both groups were apostates.

And tell me what truth is determined by. Would love to hear your explanation.

Also, while on the subject of truth, more concrete evidence that absolute truth exists is seen with the laws of math and laws of logic. Take the three most fundamental laws of logic as an example. If the Law of Identity, the Law of Excluded Middle and the Law of Non Contradiction were not valid laws, no rational thought or communication would be possible. These three laws are valid in every sense of the word. But "valid" implies "being supported by objective truth or generally accepted authority" (under synonyms from the M-W Collegiate Dictionary). Moreover, these laws are universally recognized, acknowledged and accepted which further reinforces strongly their validity, i.e. their status as objective/absolute truth.

[Actor]

I'd like to make a small digression to ask a question of anyone who cares to respond.

Back in the 1960s there as a made-for-television movie titled Leviathan Five. The story told of five men trapped in an underground lab. They know how long it will take for rescuers to reach them. They also know that their air will run out before then and they will all die. But there is just enough air that four people might survive is one of them dies. Which one do they kill?

The movie did not go into the religion of the five but suppose that four of them where atheists and one was a true Christian. Would not the logical choice be to kill the Christian? After all, the Christian believes he will go to heaven and that the others will burn in hell. Should not the Christian accept the role of sacrificial lamb since he will immediately go the heaven and one or more of the others might afterward repent and be saved? Also, from the atheists point of view, the Christian should fear death the least.