Jobar

Mingan, discussions here often extend over weeks, occasionally over months. That's one of the advantages of a board like this; take all the time you feel you need.

It looks to me like you are seeking scriptural reasons to offer salvation to all who "do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly"- whether with God or without. I find that admirable, and if all Christians sought the same, I am sure that there would be fewer atheists and more Christians.

The problem I see is that if you wished to find Biblical reasons to condemn all but a tiny and select few to Hell, there are ample verses to support that interpretation, too. Did Jesus come bringing not peace, but a sword? Or to tell us to do good to those that persecute us, and to turn the other cheek?

The Catholics seem willing to consign all the 'virtuous pagans' to the first circle of Hell, where there is supposedly no suffering, but no presence of God. Many fire-and-brimstone Protestant sects are more than willing to send all such straight to the flames.

Ah, and re Romans 1:20- can you explain to me how an 'invisible quality' can be 'clearly seen'? That's one of the reasons we are atheists- search long and earnestly though we may, we find no evidence of any 'eternal power and divine' in nature. All the knowledge of the world that we collect points to no conscious benevolence ruling over all. The universe is uncaring; joy or pain, good or evil, life or death, are all as one to it, and the only meanings are the ones we humans create.

Copernic

Thanks Mingan for your thoughtful replies.

I'll be pleased to read any scripture references you bring up but that's not the point of my question.

I will assume for this discussion that your best understanding of the requirements of salvation are the way things actually are. (We'll talk about the ignorant and incompetant later)

I won't argue scripture (meaning, context, interpretation, errancy, etc.) with you. My intent here is to see if a Christian's concept of God and the rules of salvation are consistant logically, and well within the context of a just and good God. I believe they are not.

While you pull some lines out of the NT, consider this very simple scenario:

A Buddhist monk in Nepal has never familiarized himself w/ Christianity. He follows the edicts of his religion which make certain demands of him in regards to his ethical treatment of his neighbors, strangers, his family, community, etc. He is a good man. According to my stated salvation taxonomy, he is to be considered ignorant of the Gospels. (i'm interested to know if he's destined for Hell but, as you said, we'll address that later).

For argument's sake, let's assume he can make it into Heaven due to his good works. <strong>What amount of knowledge about the Gospels must be given to him before he is to be held accountable for that knowledge?</strong> 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

Amos

That's exactly my point. Some form of paradise is know the world over and everybody seems to be looking for it.

Why would we compare our gospel with those of others? Because that is what literary master pieces are all about. Each author has his own unique presentation of is. We can also learn from each other because understanding is what it is all about.

Especially in our advanced society some sort of religion is needed for salvation. I am thinking here of Nietzsche's camel were we are actually the camel and our education and belongings are the baggage. If we are overloaded it will be difficult for us to reach the oasis if we must become like a lion to get there.

I can agree with the "good works" concept but not in the usual interpretaion of "good works." Good works for me are our accumilations of eidetic images and they lead to us the grand inquisition of who we really are. In other words, they must motivate us and we are moved by them (Jn.21:18). So I am just opposite to the conventional "good works" concept.

[ October 25, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Amos

It is actually much worse than that because a good evangelist will drag him right into hell if he gets a chance.

Mingan

Copernic (and Jobar)

Copernic: You are correct, I did in fact miss the main point of your question. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> I keyed in on the word “Gospels” and missed the main context of the question: obviously an easy mistake among Christians in general, and myself especially.
To one of your points (I’m afraid I have them hopelessly out of order by now, so please forgive me)

Excellent argument. If I were to take it at face value, I’d have to say, “Yes, he should run away.” However, you’re leading into the argument based on a hypothetical situation. You’re asking me to allow for the possibility that the Monk will get to heaven based on the life he’s lived. Unfortunately, as you are well aware, there is no proof of this anywhere, so I am unequipped to say if the Monk will make it or not. There is a significant amount of Christian evidence that lends to the contrary, but no proof. I’ll have to concede this point to you as an excellent logical puzzle because I have no argument that can possible solve it as “absolutely true”.

The obvious response to this is that God didn’t deem to tell me his plan for salvation. He also didn’t choose to leave behind absolute certainty for the world to see, perhaps so as to not override the freewill of an individual. I will take up this argument if you don’t mind. I’d be very interested to hear you points on this subject, and try to show you my point of view. I have noticed I am hopelessly outnumbered in this forum, so if other distracts me temporarily, rest assured this will be one of my main focuses and I will return shortly. Let me conduct a little more research.

This is my intent as well, with the following assumptions. As I tick them off let me know if I’m wrong about one and we’ll add them to the list of “we’ll get to that later”. 1) There is a distinction between logical and reasonable. 2) Logic and reason are not necessarily compatible in the same “space”. 3) Just because an argument is logical does not mean it is reasonable. 4) In a purely logical debate, it is not always possible to come to a reasonable conclusion. 5) Because each of us will bring our own unreasonable biases to the conversation, there is a good likelihood we will never reach a satisfactory solution.
Basically by taking these assumptions, we leave the door open for us to have an honest exchange of ideas, end with neither of us changing our fundamental views, and continue on to other intellectual pursuits.
I’d ask you now to double check and make sure I’m only the correct question (I think it’s the one in the middle) before I spend any more of my time chasing feral water fowl.
Thanks

Mingan

Jobar
I missed your post in the other chatter on the site. I'm working on it now.

Mingan

I agree, hence all the different denominations and Christian disagreements. Frankly I don’t even know if I’m cut out to do justice to this argument. If 2,000 years of Christianity has it so hopelessly boggled, I don’t see how I can do anything more than damage it further.
Today marks the very first day of serious investigation into the Catholic version of Christianity. I am not qualified to speak on anything Catholic yet. As for the Protestant denominations, it seems that way to me as well. I don’t think we have an points of contention here.
With all due respect to your obvious experience, here we have a point of contention. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I can competently trade ideas with you and Copernic over two different topics. With all my research, schooling, and training I will not have the time to adequately prepare for any useful exchange on two different fronts. However, can we add this to the hopper; have you join in with Copernic and me on the issue of logical salvation application (in a private room if we can get it), and take this up on a later date. I do want to pursue this.

Jobar

That's fine, Mingan. I knew that last paragraph was off topic when I wrote it; the verse seemed such a clear demonstration of one of the problems atheists have with Christianity, that I felt I had to point it out.

When a polite and reasonable believer comes here, we often have a problem with our atheist members 'piling on'. As a mod, I will attempt to keep it under control; and most of our members are well aware of the problem. My suggestion is to not try to answer every single question presented. Answer the ones that interest you, unless the person addressing you indicates that they feel it's very important.

I, and the other mods on EoG, feel that good manners are vital to carrying on a maximally informative conversation, or debate. Normally the members who post in EoG are polite, and will not attack without considerable provocation. If you feel you have not been treated fairly, don't hesitate to speak up; we get too many ranters and ravers, and so we try to take especial care of the rational ones!

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Philosoft

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

One of your all-time greats, Amos.

Copernic

As I try to wrap my mind around a first century theologian, I get a number of things from Paul's Romans. One is your reference that God's plan is obvious and he who rejects Him is damned.

This scripture begs two questions. What about God is obvious? and Who is Paul talking to and why is this important?

1)A first century gentile may conclude that existance proves a Creator. This is not a hard concept for Romans to understand or any other person living at that time. Alternatives to a creator were counterintuitive. Denying the existance of God was seen as allowing them to act sinfully, without remorse and repercussions. That is a similar claim made today by Christians. We atheists want to throw caution to the wind, live sinfully, and be evil so we reject God when in actuality, most of us reject God because that was the scientific/philosophic path we found ourselves on in our search for the truth. So for Paul, and today's Christians, rejection of an obvious God is reason enough for punishment because it implies impure living rather than honest "soul" searching.

2)Remember that Paul is writing Christians in Rome and is trying to keep them on the straight and narrow. The willfully ignorant are those whom he and his God squad have witnessed to and thus know the nature of God and salvation yet reject it due to pagan influence. I understand Paul is reminding them to stay on course lest be damned.

In this discussion, "ignorant" is taking on two meanings. The Buddhist monk is ignorant of Gospel teachings but may not be ignorant of the concept of living righteously and seeing the creation as a purposeful wonder. Is he saved?

If yes, then once some overzealous Christian witnesses to him and he rejects it because it counters everything he knows to be true, then the Christian as singlehandedly damned him to Hell (something to be proud of aint it?).

I ask again, how much knowledge about Jesus's role in salvation is required of my hypothetical Buddhist monk for him to lose his Heaven pass and roast in Hell?

I'm watching college football right now, if my Buddhist friend were with me drinking beer and eating Baked Lays, and he were to see the John 3:16 sign in the stands, should he now start dreading his eternal fate? Whereas before he was Heaven-bound?

J

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ]

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Copernic ]</p>