Quote:
Originally posted by GeoTheo:
1. You would likely worship the Hellenistic Pantheon had you been born in ancient Greece. On a similar vein, you would likely worship Allah or Vishnu had you been
born in Iran or India today. Cultural influences are the single greatest factor deciding which religion you'll pick, with few individuals choosing one that's unpopular in
their country. Given this data, in your view, can belief in Christianity be a legitimate, fair criterion for deciding who goes to hell?
Yes No[/i]
This is a question I can only answer if I assume your assumptions are correct. In light of that the question is totally subjective and serves no purpose in seeking an answer other than to prove your assumption. It's like saying "If you were a horse and I were a carrot would you eat me?" and then calling me a canibal if i answer yes and calling me an idiot If I answer no because it is obvious horses eat carrots. The goal is not to ask a question you actually want an answer to but to merely manipulate the reader to reach your foregone conclusion.
|
... so my assumptions are wrong, and you *wouldn't* likely be a Muslim if you were born in Iran, or Christian if you were born here?
Quote:
2. Could an omnipotent God resolve thorny spiritual issues and pave the way to salvation without requiring faith in a single belief?
Yes No
Another meaningless question. What God "could do" is not at issue with Christians, but what he does do.
|
Why? I think it's a
veryimportant question. If your God could implement a better system, but didn't, what does that tell us about his character?
A. He isn't as nice as many of his fallible creations. Many people don't like worshipping anything meaner than they are.
B. This interpretation of God is a human invention. Hey, this one answers a lot of other questions...
Quote:
3. Assuming the above wasn't done, and anyone who isn't a Christian or otherwise exempt from judgment will be condemned: would you consider a being who is
content with at least 60% of humanity spending eternity in hell [2], with no chance of ever being forgiven for everyone, child rapists, medieval inquisitors, Hitler and
your friendly neighborhood agnostic included, worthy of human worship?
Yes No
"Assuming the above meaningless question is somehow valid, here is another set of unwarranted assertions to try on for size..." would have been a better( more accurate) way to introduce this question. I am not saying these topics are not things Christians should consider i.e. the salvation of mankind in light of the prevalence of unbelief and cultural factors that get in the way of sharing the gospel; I just object to how you phrase the questions. I also think there are many options left out in favor of the one you are so obviously driving at. Namely that God does not exist and that Christianity is ridiculous.
On the other hand Christians who present these topics in a much similar way should be questioned.
One thing to keep in mind though is that the Bible nowhere says that true belief is arrived at through adopting the culture around you. This does not provide salvation to "cultural Christians" either. It is a personal choice everyone has to make. Some people in other cultures may wrongly reject the truth in order to cave in to social pressure around them. I would say this would be greater in a radical muslem country but has no bearing on the truth of Christianity. You also leave out the option of people in non-Christian cultures that are genuinely seeking God and how theologians deal with this issue. Your whole line of questioning is built on the premise that all people in other cultures go straight to Hell for not having heard the gospel. Since each question builds on the earlier ones there is nothing for me to respond to from the get go.
|
If you'll notice, that question is directed at those who believe ANYONE WHO ISN'T A CHRISTIAN will go to hell. While the uncomfortable ramifications of 3rd World tribesmen being damned have spawned many ad hoc rationalizations for how they'll be given a "get out of hell free" card, this creates another problem addressed by question A15:
If people who have never heard the Gospels are judged on their relative merits, many morally objectionable results, such as infants, third-world tribesmen or honestly mistaken people unfairly going to hell, are removed. If that is the case, people who have heard the Gospels, however, will be judged mainly by whether or not they accepted them. The theological implications are entirely shocking: if you're basically a good person, the main effect hearing the story of Jesus will have is increase your chances of going to Hell, should you reject it. Conversely, if you're a very evil person, hearing the Good News will only increase your chances of going to Heaven, should you accept it. Suppressing Christianity may thus paradoxically result in more good souls being saved and more evil ones being condemned, which is more in line with our own values of fairness. Given this stunning possibility, could completely refusing to evangelize Christianity itself, instead promoting a just ethical code, actually be the morally right thing to do, despite the possible consequences to your own salvation?
Yes No
Also, once you start creating exceptions for one group, you might not have any obligation to keep the hell concept at all. How is someone who never heard the gospel less guilty than someone who heard it but thought it was similar nonsense to every other wacky religion?
Quote:
4. Given both the sobering statistic given above and the full extent of God's supposed omnipotence and mercy, would you consider Christ's mission on Earth a
resounding success had you been an impartial, outside observer?
Yes No
Key word "given". It is not a given, therfore once again we have a totally meaningless question.
|
I'll rephrase this one a bit.
5. If Adam and Eve did not possess the knowledge of good and evil before eating the apple, did they nevertheless know that God was good, and Satan was evil,
which might have been necessary to fully understand why obeying God's order above Satan's suggestion was the right decision?
Yes No
No room here for anyone with anything other than a totally literal interpretation of Genesis. So here you leave out huge segments of Christianity.
6. If you answered 'yes', and they already had knowledge of good and evil, was there any real purpose to the Tree of Knowledge?
Yes No
see above[/quote]
Good point. Similar to other controversial questions, I'll add a disclaimer here so only those who hold such views should answer.
Quote:
7. Would you consider throwing your kids out on the street for taking a chocolate chip cookie before dinner, when you clearly told them not to?
Yes No
???????
|
Just a heavy handed ploy to destroy people's faith by revealing how nonsensical the fall story described in Genesis really is
Quote:
8. If you somehow answered 'yes' to the preceding question, would you eventually, someday consider letting them back in without conditions such as exclusive
worship of yourself required before forgiveness?
Yes No
The further you build on the original flawed assumption the more ridiculous these questions get. So I will skip down to one that has somthing for me.
O.K I read ahead and there is nothing for me in section 1. I will be back later to illustrate how I adress some of these issues and reach conclusions you leave out which strengthens my faith.
|
For some reason, you don't sound as convinced as you were before. At any rate, there are plenty of more sections
10-11-2002, 05:15 PM
