Amos

But Philosoft, it is true and I am right here.

The point made by Copernic (cited below) was very good and you must wonder if they have never thought about that themselves. Forget not that their purpose and aim is to awaken 'the sleeper' within and instill upon them the promise of eternal life. With this realization comes the paradox "sinful yet saved" because also the concept sin has to be made real (Gal.2:17 holds "that in seeking to be justified we are convicted as sinners"). So now they are "saved sinners" with one leg in heaven and one in hell and that is why they will remain lukewarm . . . untill they die nonetheless.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Copernic:
Would it not be prudent for him to run away from any missionaries lest he hear just enough of their "witnessing" and be forced to rip up his get into Heaven free card should he not be convinced?
Thanks
J

Mingan

Copernic

Since this started as a biblical discussion, I’ll continue along those lines of thought. First
For me, nearly all the things I see indicate to me God’s creation and love. All the beautiful things of nature, all the ways that my child shows me he loves me, or my wife, my interactions with other “good” people.
Romans 1
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Paul is writing to the Romans, but he’s speaking to them about the people of the world, including you, Jobar, and myself (and everyone else).
However, I think you missed the point with this statement. God, through His word, has asked us to seek and search after Him. What merits punishment, or justice (which is a more apt term), is when a person, because of the sin that is in them, refuses to accept the salvation God has offered. God is not a man that He should lie. He said that the wages of sin is death, and by refusing to take the path I’ve provided for salvation, then I have no choice but to serve justice on you.
I don’t think that’s what Paul is saying at all. He’s reminding them that they are now saved from damnation and they should show the evidence to the gentiles and use it as an argument to help them receive salvation.
I’d say he is not saved – in the sense of going to Heaven. According to the scriptures
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Which brings us full circle back to the argument of what happens to the ignorant or incompetent. I would think that by the strictest interpretations of John 14:6, nearly anyone would say that the ignorant and incompetent are just out of luck and going to hell. But I don’t think it’s that simple. God also says
Romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Mark 9
21 And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child.
22 And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.
I think there is a balance to all things, it seems God has balanced all creation. Rights are balanced with wrongs, goods and evils, light and dark; so I don’t see any reason the scripture shouldn’t be balanced as well. God says, accept Jesus’ sacrifice on your behalf, or face punishment. I also think, according to these and other scriptures, He will have compassion on those who are not accorded the chance. But that’s not all there is to it, lest your Buddhist friend take off running. One of the purposes of Christianity is to “mature” the Christian to be more effective in the world. Our battle is not with you, or your other non-believing friends, you are just as much a pawn in the cosmic battlefield as I am.
Ephesians 6:12
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Since you seem determined to press me on this, even though I’ve conceded that I have no reality-based idea. I’ll say, for the sake of argument, that the instant he hears about Jesus, he has to make up his mind. He’s already Hell-bound unless God takes compassion on him, so this is his chance to get the automatic pass to the top floor. Once he has the knowledge he will be held accountable for his decision and growth in Christ.
Hope things went well for you, your football team, and you imaginary monk.


[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Mingan ]</p>

Copernic

This is where we run afoul. Based upon your statements and your best understanding of the salvation rules, my Monk-friend was created by God for the sole purpose of being cast to hell, for let's assume that he wan't at my house watching the game (UVA lost by the way, arrggh) but sitting in his temple in Nepal. Chances are he will not be visited by a missionary. His geographically- and culturally-based ignorance dooms him. Why would God create a soul, to enjoy family, friends, and his creation, only to be separated from Him upon his death?

This makes some very likely assumptions. One - my monk-friend is kind, yet ignorant of Christianity. Two - my monk-friend may have been visited by two un-articulate missionaries who fail to make a convincing argument for his conversion (he's righfully incredulous).

I submit that based upon these assumptions, that the Biblical God is cruel and unjust to allow billions of folks to go to Hell for the mere reason that his Gospel is not universally known, or is being carried to the masses ineffectively.

Now to your post specifically;

seems simple to me...and unjust.

self-referencing statement. He'll damn who he will damn, as well. So what? I'll eat what I'll eat today, as well. Doesn't tell us anything.

We're talking past each other here as well. I believe most biblical scholars when they say that the theology of Mark as it represents Jesus' teachings is quite different than the theology of Paul. You believe they mesh...I don't.

Besides, this quote merely reflects Jesus' reported healing a boy of muteness and dementia caused by evil spirits. Sugar pills (placebos) have been shown to be effective against such things as well. Come now, this text is not supporting your assertions as it focusses on the power of prayer on healing and not salvation.

Consider, my own Pascal' Wager. Suppose someone comes to you and says that they are going to tell you something very far-fetched and if you choose not to believe, you will be damned for eternity. However, if you choose not to listen at all, you will be just fine. What's your choice?

I would hate for my eternal fate to be determined by the chance I came upon Christians who've yet to "mature". Better I avoid them all lest I take the chance of being held accountable to poorly made arguments.

no pawns, no battles, just living my life, doing the best I can for my friends, family, community, etc.

It is a cruel God to condemn those who have not heard, who were not convinced by the poorly made arguments of most Christians and a Book, that through its continual redaction, is incomprehensible, contradictory, and written by people struggling against the tyrannies of the day and ignorant of the larger world and its complexities.

Yours, J

Tercel

Hi Copernic,

Your question is one that troubled me for a long time about Christianity. The way the extremists (and thus the more vocal ones thus the ones who get more media coverage) put it, you must be a believing Christian when you die in order to be saved otherwise you go to Hell. There seems to be rather more than a few problems with that view and you appear to have noticed at least one of them.
In actual fact there are several different Christian views on the nature of salvation and what it takes and there appears to me to be significant differences of opinion even among the Biblical authors.

The most problematic view seems to be what I would call "Fundamentalist Arminianism", the viewpoint that seems to get the most publicity - that God is all-loving, all-powerful, wants everyone to be saved, yet has restricted salvation to those who *believe* the Gospel and will send everyone else off to a nice firey Hell.
A more consistent, but also popular, version is "Fundamentalist Calvinism", that the all-powerful God *choses* who is to be saved and saves those people via getting them to hear the Gospel and forcing them to believe it.

Moving on from these extremists to the more standard "Traditional Conservatives"...
It has generally been accepted that those (such as the Buddhist monk) who didn't get to hear the Gospel during their life, will in fact be able to hear it after death and be saved then. This seems to have been the belief of the writer of 1 Peter (see 3:18 and 4:6) and also is supported by the ancient (1st or 2nd century) Apostles Creed. The fate of those who heard clearly and *still* rejected the Gospel hasn't always been clearly agreed upon.
I really have no idea why so many have dropped this traditional idea recently in favour of the "Fundamentalist XXX" positions...

These Conservative Protestant views all have in common the very strong idea that it is *belief* or otherwise "in" Jesus that is the important thing.
However Catholics, Orthodox, and Liberal Protestants would beg to differ. The standard Orthodox doctrine, also held by numerous liberal protestants (including me and, I think, CS Lewis) is that the issue of salvation is to do with one's nature as opposed to beliefs. The naive have a tendency to confuse this with "salvation by works", which it isn't. Works is what you do, "faith" (the way the fundies interpret it) is what you believe, and your nature is what you are. Obviously nature is going to cause works to some extent (The author of James puts it nicely in chapter 2) - eg the hypothetical Monk did good 'cos he was a loving person, but it's not the works that save.
I don't think belief is important (as James points out: "even the demons believe" and it doesn't help them) - everyone will ultimately find out the truth after they die anyway. (Fairly central to the Orthodox/Liberal idea is that character development can continue after death (Have you read Lewis' "The Great Divorce"?), a view generally not shared by the Conservatives even those who allow for belief after death) Rather what matters is who we are - whether we are ultimately prepared to allow God to work in us to transform us into beings of love and compassion. Eventually (after however long it takes) there will be two sets of beings: Those who have accepted God's workings to make them like Christ - loving, humble and selfless. And those who are so completely and utterly corrupted that they are out and out selfish, prideful and hateful.
Beyond that, I'm pretty much an agnostic as to exactly what happens to the two groups, but the Orthodox go a few steps further and say that there is no "judgement" exactly, just God's full revealling love on everyone which the wicked, because of their own wickedness perceives as "Hell" and the good perceive as "Heaven". Analogous to the way sunlight hurts diseased eyes but people with healthy eyes enjoy it. (They insist that God himself makes no differentiation or judgement between one person and the next any more than the sun does) Personally I see nothing wrong with the more conservative idea of a definitive judgement, and I tend to think an annihilation (if it's actually possible to destroy a human soul, perhaps as Lewis suggested they'd be something left no matter what) of the damned would be a mercy. (Though the Orthodox are against annihilationism)
Also, according to Orthodoxy it is legitimate to hope that ALL might be saved (even Satan) but not legit to say that they will be.

As far as I can tell the Catholics are far too close to Conservative Protestant for my liking (but have been influenced just enough by Scripture and Orthodoxy to upset the Protestants) - as well as having done the standard Catholic thing of adding random doctrines.

There are also a few other miscellaneous Christian and semi-Christian groups that would hold that things like a specific type of Baptism or some sort of works are necessary.


Recommended Reading:
1. <a href="http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm" target="_blank">River of Fire</a> - A 10,000 word speech by a modern Orthodox Theologian on the subjects of the Goodness of God and the Afterlife. (I strongly recommend you read Part X onwards and suggest you skim read prior to that)
2. CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" - A work of theological fiction intended to make the reader think and to convey broadly some of the ideas of liberal protestants about the nature of the afterlife.
3. <a href="http://www.near-death.com/storm.html" target="_blank">This Near Death Experience</a> I certainly do NOT agree with everything he says, but broadly speaking this experience conveys well some of my thoughts about the afterlife.
4. 1 John - a pretty short book, but I think it succiently expounds better than any other part of the Bible that a nature of love and light is the true meaning of being "in union with Christ" or being "in Christ" or having "faith in Christ. (Colossians also covers this theme well)
5. <a href="http://www.christian-thinktank.com./hnohear.html" target="_blank">Here is Glenn Miller's answer to the question</a> - Ironically, a fundamentalist who's managed to wrangle out a liberal position purely based on his convenient selection of certain Biblical verses combined with liberal application of the amusing principle that "Whatever else we find [eg verses I'd like to ignore because they contradict], it can't possibly contradict these other verses whos meaning is clear / had already decided on earlier." that is so typical of fundamentalist exegesis. (Notice if he'd started with the other set of verses first and used that principle, he'd have come to the opposite conclusion) -Care to guess what my favorite topic for ranting on is?

Paul of Tarsus

The question here was asked, and answered in Romans. Paul says that those without [the Gospels] are judged (held to a standard) by the Law written in their minds. For example, if a culture had "written" that three stone of a given value equaled one pig and the 3 stones did not sum up to the agreed value, the standard (apart from anything written in the Gospels) would convict. Paul says that all members of all cultures have violated their standards, or sinned. Its not necessary to know anything about the Gospels to require needing a way out of violating "standards".

Arvel Joffi

A group of men sits in a circle, reading the word of God:

"See? God is as we believed him to be." All nod their heads in agreement.

But upon elaboration, each sees that no one else thought as he.

"But," one of them asks, "Who is right? Who will damned for blasphemy? And who blessed for guessing right?"

All point their fingers in answer to the first question, "You."

All thump their chests in answer to the second, "I."