Amos

. . . and stay home where they should pray in their closet only.

the_cave

Ah, but read what spurly wrote:

Others, who did not know about Jehovah, were saved or lost based on what they did with what they could know from the world around them - see Romans 1.

The same is true today. Someone who's never been offered the gospel can still live a righteous life, and hence be potentially saved. It's true this isn't "known" for sure in many Christian churches, but it's at least seen as a valid opinion in many.

Besides, there's always been a strain of universalism in Christianity, however slender. Most Christian churches I know teach that one can't really judge what will happen to the "unrighteous" after death. They're taught to preach the gospel, and that's what they do. (I admit some churches do claim that the unrighteous are headed for hell.)

keyser_soze

Exactly! Hey, I'm just agreeing here!

HaysooChreesto!

But if it is held true by certain sects, then doesn't that open up another can of worms?
It reminds me of the old joke about the priest and the Eskimo.

Wouldn't one be better off never having heard of Xtianity? Should one rejoice if their child dies because that child died in innocence and ignorance? As an extreme example wouldn't it be better if all teachings of Xtianity were forever banished so that the vast majority of people who are law abiding citizens would go to Heaven?
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate the banishment of any religion. But if all were ignorant of the Xtian god then almost all would be saved.

the_cave

What would "law-abiding" mean? No felonies? No misdemeanors? No civil offenses? What about someone who'd committed no crimes, but when it came to his/her love life, they were an unrepentant scoundrel and a rogue?

I'm also not sure that being "law-abiding" suffices. I think it's more a matter of participating in an ethical system that's linked to an understanding of a divine power, and proper recognition of that power (as best as one understands it, anyway. But even this doesn't absolutely rule out atheists...!) But I'm not sure on this point; I could look up some sources if need be.

I certainly don't think that even a universalist Christian would rejoice if their child died, nor would they think one should. Christian belief in heaven doesn't preclude sorrow over pain in this life.

At any rate, I've been taught that the proper attitude is to have no attitude; judge not, lest ye be judged.

I'm kind of interested in that joke...don't think I've heard it...

Bumble Bee Tuna

A priest goes to missionary to the eskimos. He tells the Eskimo that unless he converts, he will be sent to eternal punishment in Hell. The Eskimo asks about his ancestors who had never been told this- Were they all in Hell? No, the preacher responded. People who have not heard the Gospel do not go to Hell. "So why did you tell me?" said the Eskimo.

I've never quite understoon why Christians are sad when Christians die. The concept of being sad over someone's life situation infinitely improving just makes no sense. I think this belies a sense that, deep down, all Christians have a shred of an idea that their beliefs are actually false. I can't imagine believing in Heaven and not being happy when Christians die. I also can't imagine believing in Hell and not being floored by the fact that so many people are going there to the point where I dedicate my entire life to trying to save people.

-B

beth

That's why ther are evangelists and misionaries. Many of these people are heart-stricken over the thought of people being doomed to hell.

Sabine Grant

Bonjour Amos... to place Christ's comment back into the context, that was his rebuke to the Pharisees who made a spectacle of themselves and publicaly to project a pious image of themselves. The fact is that believers can pray anywhere anytime but without the need to have an audience. Imagine the Pope having to go to his "closet".....