Pagan vs Christen [Archive]

greenghost

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Free Range,

being the contentious SOB that I am, I like to put my response to questions like this as follows: if God does indeed have the characteristics that certain people attribute to Him, then I am probably smarter than God and certainly more loving!

Of course, the implication is that since I am obviously not smarter nor more loving than God, God must not have those attributes.

Look believing in God cannot possibly be necessary for making it to Heaven, not even if you have heard the word of Christ and still don't believe (sorry to disagree BW). Here is why: it is inconsistent with God's nature to be a deciever. And yet, God has made the world in such a way that otherwise perfectly good, perfectly reasonable and sincere people can fail to believe in Him. But if God required belief for admission to Heaven, then He would be a deciever. Hence, God cannot possibly require belief, as claimed.

I want to add that I am not simply trying to be contentious here. I have been struggling with a bunch of different issues for the last year or so and these are points which I have come to regard as really very important. So I am quite sincere and also apologize if I offend anyone for making them.

BLACK WOLF

11-02-2005, 04:16 PM

greenghost,

No offense taken here. I generally don't take a person's opinion personally even if its directed personally towards me.

I hope you have a higher opinion of yourself than just an SOB ;) I know I do of you.

Who defines who is perfectly good, perfectly reasonable and perfectly sincere?

By what standards makes a person perfect?

Are you perfect?

Do you know anyone who is?

Who is better to judge a person...the Creator or the created?

If not one person you know of is perfect than that means there is an imperfection and that imperfection is sin.

God has made it very simple for all people. All we have to do is believe in Him, but some people have made it harder than what it needs to be. There is no favoritism concerning that issue. Everyone will be treated just and fairly.

If a person chooses to not believe in God, than why in the world would they want to spend an eternity with a being they don't believe exists?

God isn't decieving anyone by requiring us to make a choice.

True Love isn't forced it is chosen.

How can you love something you don't believe in?

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-02-2005, 04:33 PM

Ray, I don't want to hijack Free Range's thread, so I am going to start another.

Ray Cover

11-02-2005, 05:14 PM

Free Range glad you brought it over here. This will be a whole lot easier to discuss here than through the PM system on the LW.

Right now I have to finish a job to meet a deadline tomorrow but I will be back probably very late tonight to give my thoughts on this.

GG, As soon as I get back from my trip this weekend I will get back to the evolution thread.

Ray

Matt

11-03-2005, 12:20 AM

I have a strong opinion on this, and it tends not to be very popular. I don't think you even have to know who Christ was to be accepted by him when you die. My reasoning is simple. God is all things that are good. A person who lives a good life already knows Christ even if he doesn’t know his name, if you follow me. An evil person can profess to know Christ and even claim to be saved by him, but if his fruit is contrary to God, then God does not know him.

So in a nutshell, a Buddhist living in the Mountains of China could be known and accepted by God. A church going Christian preacher could be a stranger to God. It depends on you. God would not be a just God if he didn't accept somebody just because a Christian Missionary never made it up his mountain to tell him that there was a man named Christ who died for him.

Again, I know this is not a popular idea to some people. But life has taught me that good is good and evil is evil no matter how you label it. Anybody can say "I believe in Christ and I accept him as my savior". LIVING what Christ taught is what I think tells Jesus Christ "You are my Savior".

A Native American growing up a thousand years ago still had the ability to choose right from wrong. Sure they had pagan beliefs, but they were taught them generation after generation. I don't believe God, being a just God, would hold them accountable for something they couldn't have any clue was wrong. I believe God will judge them on their capacity for accountability, as he will Judge us all.

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 05:05 AM

Free Range

11-03-2005, 05:56 AM

Thanks guys for taking the time to respond. I’m sure someone has a scripture or two that might shed some light on this subject. This is my uneducated opinion on this, I believe that Christ walked this earth in many forms. I believe he did this to help the peoples he was reaching out to, to understand him and his message better. How could a Native American possibly comprehend the Christ from Bethlehem? Wouldn’t it make much more sense for him to come to them through a believe system that they already had? Anyhow that is my opinion, backed up by what little I know about religion from other cultures.

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 08:07 AM

Jesus can be seen here on earth in many forms, but there was only one form he took physically here on earth and that was in the form of one man and that one man was Jesus.

We can see Jesus working within people and we can sometimes see His image reflected within people.

There isn't anything scripturally that I could find to say otherwise.

Do you have anything scripturally to support your belief that Jesus walked the earth in many different forms?

In the beginning there was only one belief in only one God. There wasn't the diversity you see today. It wasn't until sin entered the world did the different variations begin to appear and it wasn't until God let us mature as human beings, as a child becomes an adult, did we create so many different views on who He is.

Jesus can come into our lives at any point and at anytime. He can come to us during good times and in our lowest times. He can come to us through a discussion or he can come to us through an experience. Jesus wants a relationship with us all. He is knocking at our door.

How can we have a relationship with a person we don't believe or realize truly exists?

Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

Ray ;)

Matt

11-03-2005, 08:16 AM

There are many roads that lead to many places and there are also may roads that lead to only one place. The road that leads to God by Muhammad is not the same road that leads to God through Jesus. Just as the road described by Buddah leads a person in a different direction. There are descrepency in the different paths to cause someone to get lost.

Any deviation from the truth is no longer the truth.

Muslims and Buddists do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, therefore they reject Biblical teachings.

Ray ;)

I agree, but I'm talking about God's fairness. Whether they beleive Jesus to be the Savior or not is not the point. Because he is. My point is that God, being just and fair, would not cast somebody from his presence because they never had the opportunity to know him. I'm not talking about the guys killing Christians, because they hate Christians. I'm talking about the guy who doesn't know what a Christian is because he's never had the opportunity to be taught by one.

Say I invite you over to my house. You, being the generous person you are, bring as a gift of nuts and cheese. Let's say I'm Lactose intolerant and allergic to nuts. Instead of telling you "Ray, I'm lactose intolerant and allergic. I can't eat them." I yell at you "Get the heck out of my house! What are you trying to do, kill me?!" Would that be fair, since you had no idea? I wouldn't do that to you, and I'm a sinner. Are you saying that God, being perfect, would?

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 08:28 AM

Matt,

According to Rom 1:20 there is no excuse for anyone to not know God to some level for who He truly is.

We all have the opportunity to know Him through His creation.

In other words and I will use part of your words to help make it clearer...God, being just and fair, will cast anybody from his presence because everyone has been given the opportunity to know him through His creation.

The part we agree with each other on is when a person never hears or is told about Jesus, and can only base his belief on God's creation.

The problem is when that person IS exposed to who Jesus is and they reject it and NEVER accept it, is when God will cast them from His presence.

The sad thing is...is that person chose it and God followed through with His promise.

Ray ;)

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 08:49 AM

Matt,

It would be like being told that you are lactose intolerant and not believing it and I still brought the cheese.

God knows our hearts and He knows everything that we have been exposed to. He's not going to reject someone, for not knowing every little detail about Him but He will reject those that choose not to believe in who He truly is.

Ray ;)

Free Range

11-03-2005, 08:52 AM

Ray, no I don’t have any scripture from the bible to support my theory. I base it on the fact that many religions, including those of many Indian tribes are very similar to Christianity, without ever having been introduced to Jesus of Nazareth. I believe he was one person, just coming to different people in ways they would understand. I read somewhere that the Native Americans experienced a Messiah among them around the same time that Jesus arose from the dead. Again I like to take a common sense approach to what I believe, and it only makes sense that He would talk to different people in ways they would understand. It would be foolish to try to convince and an Indian that Jesus was killed on the cross by a bunch of Romans for their sins. I would imagine they would say something like, Jesus? Romans? What you talking about Willis? :o)

Matt

11-03-2005, 09:06 AM

Ray, I read the scripture. But I read it as, everybody has a sence of basic good and evil (which I agree), and we are accountable for those things.

However, I just read one of you posts I missed. You said: God knows our hearts and He knows everything that we have been exposed to. He's not going to reject someone, for not knowing every little detail about Him but He will reject those that choose not to believe in who He truly is.

I agree with that. What I'm saying is that somebody who is living a good life will know Christ when they finally meet him, and not reject him (no matter of the religion they were taught). And he will know them.

I don' t want to hijack this thread anymore. I see your point though.

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 09:09 AM

It's not my job to convince anyone of anything. One of my responsibilities is to spread the Word and it's up to the person I share it with to believe it or not.

Ray ;)

Matt

11-03-2005, 09:14 AM

Ray, no I don’t have any scripture from the bible to support my theory. I base it on the fact that many religions, including those of many Indian tribes are very similar to Christianity, without ever having been introduced to Jesus of Nazareth. I believe he was one person, just coming to different people in ways they would understand. I read somewhere that the Native Americans experienced a Messiah among them around the same time that Jesus arose from the dead.

Free Range,
Do you remember where you read that the Native Americans expierenced a Messiah? Was it from Mormons or an archelogical/ historical record? I'm Mormon, and what you posted there is the basses of our relgion. If you remember, I'd like to know where you got the info.

BLACK WOLF

11-03-2005, 10:06 AM

Free Range,

You said - "I base it on the fact that many religions, including those of many Indian tribes are very similar to Christianity."

I agree and do you know why that is?

It's because there was onlu one belief in the begining and for a religion to even sound half way plausable there has to be some truth mixed in with it.

I love you guys and would like nothing more than to be able to convince you of what I believe to be true, but even if you disagree...I still love ya! ;)

Ray ;)

Free Range

11-03-2005, 10:11 AM

Matt, I’m sorry but I don’t remember. I’m sure it wasn’t from any Mormon teachings, or books about Mormons, because I have never read anything from or about them. More then likely it was from some kind of Native American history book, I have read a bunch of books dealing with Native Americans and their religious beliefs.

Free Range

11-03-2005, 10:16 AM

Black Wolf, no need to convince me I already believe, just looking for answers to things that I have no answers for yet. Maybe I’m starting down the path back to my roots in the church.

Matt

11-03-2005, 10:29 AM

Ok, well if it comes to you please PM me or something. I'd be really interested in reading that material.

Ray Cover

11-03-2005, 11:03 AM

Boy I wish I had time to jump in on this today. I can't wait to get back from my Columbus trip on Monday so I can join in on this.

Ray

Free Range

11-03-2005, 11:50 AM

Ray where are you located in MO, I'm from SE KS, moved out here to CO almost a year ago.

Ray Cover

11-03-2005, 12:50 PM

I,m on the other side of the sate. I'm about 20-25 miles south of St Louis right off of Hwy 55.

Ray

Free Range

11-03-2005, 12:53 PM

How close to Arnold, MO? I lived there for a couple years, My Dad was in the USAF until I was 13, thats when we moved to SE KS, and I spent the rest of my life there until now.

Cato

11-03-2005, 08:48 PM

Jesus said, " I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me". Paul, inspired by the Spirit said, "By grace you have been saved, through faith, not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast".

So we are saved only through the work of Christ, and there is no other salvation. And we can in no way work for or earn salvation. It is a gift. It is unmerrited, unearned, & undeserved.

The starting point is to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. I do, and I think many of you do. If you do, then the Bible seems to clearly say that we are saved by Faith, and that the ONLY say to salvation is through Jesus, and what He did on our behalf.

In the Old Testament, people were saved by Faith as well. It was faith in what God would do. It was not salvation by works. But it seems clear that they did not have a complete understanding of the saving work of Christ. Never the less, they were saved by faith in what was to come.

So I can see some room for the ignorant native who never obtains or has opportunity to hear the Word clearly, but seeks God, to be saved by Christ. I am not saying that is a fact; only plausible to me.

But the Scripture is equally clear about those who reject the Truth when they hear it, or refuse the opportunity to hear it. For them, they condemn themselves. Anyone like that who does not ask Christ to come into their lives as Savior, will be judged by the law. And the law will bring death, eternal separation from God, as none of us can keep the law.

To entertain some notion that "God is kind and will not do so in so" is a violation of the second comandment isn't it? It is seeking to make God in our own image. We are not at liberty to shape God into our mold. He is who He is, and we best carefully examine the Bible to learn of Him. He is a loving God. But out of His love, He must also be just. And His justice demands that sin be punished.

Much of the struglle really has to do with the soverignty of God. We humans have trouble accepting the notion that the Creator of all things has the perfect right to do as He desires without explaining to us why He does it.

These are just some wandering thoughts on this topic. I will be curious to read further as you guys discuss.

Cato

Warped Arrow

11-04-2005, 01:06 PM

I normally dont post in Christian based areas, but I thought that an outsiders input may be appreciated here.

I have wound through a few religions in the few years I have been alive. I was raised Roman Catholic, babtised at birth by the anointing of oil. I was baptised Southern Baptist later on in life as well. I have read and thought about religions of the world. I traveled to Germany and learned the religious base there as well in my youth as an Army brat.

I am currently what would be called a Pagan. Though I do not adhear to the strict teachings of the Church, I follow many of them.

What I have found is that no matter what you call it; be it God, Allah, Jehoviaor, or whatever, we all belive in a Higher Power that is Savior and Judge. What I am getting at is though all religions are differant, they are all the same when you get to the basics of it. Love God, Love thyself, love one another, and do what is right.

If every one could agree and see that we are all the same when it comes down to it, we would be better off.

I am not saying that God isnt the Way. I am not saying that Christians are wrong. What I am saying is that we all should open our eyes and see our brothers and sisters for what they are: Our Brothers and Sisters!!

I hope that I havent offended anyone with this, it is just my view and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I am just trying to say: Open your eyes and hearts, except your Brothers and Sisters for what they are and not what you want them to be. Do not look at the ways we are different, but at the ways we are the same.

I will see you on the other side , Bright Blessings to all!!

Swanny

11-04-2005, 01:33 PM

"Well I asked the question, how does someone that has never been introduced to Christ go about getting into heaven, and what makes our religion better then theirs."

My best well-rounded guess to the first part of the question:

"But NOW [not in the past] a righteousness from God, apart from law, HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all WHO BELIEVE. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all who believe] are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus....where then is boasting? IT IS EXCLUDED. On what principle? On that of observing the law? NO, BUT ON THAT OF FAITH....is God the God of Jews only? [no] Is he not the God of the Gentiles [the non-Jewish population]? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only ONE God, who will justify the circumcised by faith [Jews] and the uncircumcised [the remaining ethnicities] through the *SAME FAITH* [in Christ and His work]." Excerpts from Rom. 3:21-30 Emphasis in caps and brackets mine.

"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses ALL WHO CALL ON HIM, for, EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED [the antithesis: everyone who does not call on the name of the Lord will not be saved]. HOW, then, CAN they call on the one they have not believed in? And HOW CAN they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? [the rhetorical answer is that they cannot...'cannot' signifies inability...no hearing...no faith...no salvation]....Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ." Excerpts from Rom 10:12-17. Emphasis in caps and brackets mine.

Sadly, will some folks die without hearing the Gospel? Yes, many have and many will. Is this fair? Depends on who defines what's fair. If you and I have the right to plug in our own understanding of what fairness should or should not involve, then the answer most likely would be 'No....this isn't fair that some will hear while others won't.' But if the Sovereign God alone has the right to define what fairness is by virtue of him being the Creator, and since the Creator has the right to do what He pleases with his creation, then by all means, yes, this is ABSOLUTELY fair.

I, as well as many others, do not see enough evidence in Scripture that is unambiguous enough to adequately conclude that all children or infants who die before a time, or age, of mental comprehension/understanding of the Gospel are safe in the arms of God. I have a close friend who has lost two infants who finds more comfort in knowing that WHATEVER God does is right and well, than they do in the effort to force Scriptures to say what we naturally tend to think they should say.

IMHO, The effort and time to read the following is a small price to pay to gain a more full understanding of the Triune God's mind:

"Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - *in order that God's purpose* in election might stand: not by works [of the individual man] but by him [God] who calls - she was told, 'the older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say? Is God unjust [or unfair]? NOT AT ALL! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It DOES NOT DEPEND [in the ultimate sense...this doesn't make void or diminish man's responsibility/accountability/culpability] on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharoah: "I raised you up FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom HE WANTS to have mercy, and he hardens whom HE WANTS to harden."

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us [hold responsible/accountable for our sin] ? For who resists [or can resist, or has the ability to resist] His will? [obviously no one]. But who are you, O [mere] man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this? [absolutely not, this is unthinkable!] Does not the potter HAVE THE RIGHT to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? [absolutely YES!] What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared [by the potter] for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory [or heaven] - even us, whom he also called, NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES?" Excerpts from Rom 9:10-24 Emphasis in caps and brackets mine.

The entire body of truth found in the Scriptures contains many individual truths that we can get our hand around and tightly grasp in understanding to bring us the much needed hope and comfort and assurance and peace, but at the same time, like Cato rightfully indicated, there are plenty of mysteries that leave us at total wonder and awe of God, and we hold them with our hands and fingers out flat - like we would when feeding a horse...at this point in time, here on earth, they are apprehensible, but not comprehensible. He would have it no other way....both aspects are needed for a correct presentation of who God is.

As to the second half of your question "why is ours better than theirs".....
Simply because Christ is the better God, Mediator, Sin-bearer, Prophet, Priest, and King like the letter to the Hebrews so adequately and thoroughly states. Like C.S. Lewis said...we either view Christ [providing we hear of him] as a liar, lunatic, or we fall down at His feet and call Him 'Lord!'.

Hope that helps.

BLACK WOLF

11-04-2005, 01:42 PM

Warped Arrow,

You are welcome here to post your thoughts and I wasn't at all offended by anything you said even though we disagree.

If there is any deviation from the truth, can it still be the truth?

If there is any deviation from one description to the next mixing truths and lies, can they both be the same?

If Hindism, Buddhism and Islam don't believe Jesus is God than how can Christianity be the same as them? That is about as basic as you can get. Christianity is completelt based on who we believe Jesus is.

Yes, allot of religions believe in a higher power that is savior and judge, but they are not all the same. In order for a lie to even sound plausible a little truth needs to be mixed in with it and that is why some religions seem so similar...but only one of them can be completely true.

Ray ;)

Free Range

11-04-2005, 01:48 PM

Thanks Swanny

BLACK WOLF

11-04-2005, 02:09 PM

Swanny,

That is probably the best advice to believe concerning this topic...WHATEVER God does is right and well...even if it we don't completely understand why.

God has a reason for doing everything and I know that reason is based on true love. He doesn't do anything that is unjust or unfair.

I may come across as feeling like I know exactly what God would do concerning this topic, but to be honest I'm not completely sure. I have to put my faith into God and believe He will do what is just and fair.

Can God's Word be understood based on His creation alone?

Based on Rom 1:20 it would seem so.

If God's Word can be understood through His creation is it basically heard or is the only way we can hear it, is through other believers?

If you understand something, I would have to believe that you would have to see it, feel it or hear it.

What if someone didn't hear it by word of mouth but saw it by reading the Bible?

Either way the most important thing that Swanny helped make clear is that we understand the our God is a fair and loving God and whatever He decides will be just that...fair and loving.

Ray ;)

Swanny

11-04-2005, 04:47 PM

Hi Ray,

Concerning Rom. 1:20 it seems to me that the text is conveying that a basic knowledge of God is gained by all men through what He has created, and this knowledge is enough evidence for God to be just in holding them accountable - thus sentencing them with condemnation and wrath since 'although they knew God (certainly not in any salvific sense), they neither glorified him as God, nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened'(vs. 21).

Also in vs. 19 "Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God hs made it plain to them" - this 'plain' or ordinary knowledge can't be the same depth of knowledge that the Scriptures reveal about God, or else there would be no need for them. The creation is also under the realm of the Adamic curse of bondage and is longing for deliverance that Rom. 8:21,22 speaks of, so it can't adequately tell of the glories of God in Christ (Heb.1:2,3) - which are the indispensable means for salvation to all who believe.

I have dear friends in Saskatchewan and Alberta and when I visit - I have spoken with the local Indian folks who still worship what their forefathers did many moons ago. One elder Indian man was teaching the youngsters in camp how to worship the trees and animals, and I asked him about why if he believed a god created the trees, why then didn't he worship the god who created, rather than the creation? His response: "our fathers and grandfathers passed down this tradition". I asked him IF this god had communicated how he wanted to be worshipped, then would he be willing to find out? Again, he was more interested in not deviating from tradition, than to rationally think about the possibilities.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." Rom. 1:23

I prayed that God would show him the mercy that He's poured out on the undeserving sinner that I am.

BTW: never did give you congrats for the sweet looking bull elk you shot in Sept.! :)

BLACK WOLF

11-04-2005, 05:31 PM

Thanks for the congrats Swanny.

I agree with you concerning Rom 1:20 but IF that is all that is ever learned or shared...would that be enough?

I think it would be if that person believes in those things that were revealed about God through His creation.

Being held accountable means we will either be saved or unsaved...correct?

With that being said God could do both depending on the outcome of what the person believes if they could only base it on His creation...agree or disagree?

I also understand Native American Indian beliefs and how they are rooted in tradition as most other religions are and how our sins and lies from our forefathers are passed down from generation to generation.

With all this being said, the reality of someone being raised away from civilization unable to hear the Good News will most likely be caught up in a religion that is a deviation from the truth and therefore be unsaved...BUT...if one of these people sees God in His true glory through His creation and begins to doubt the teachings of his people...could he be saved?

I understand that the chances are highly unlikely, but could it be possible?

If you believe we have to hear the Good News, what is your understanding when it comes to the mentally retarded, very young, deaf and blind, etc. and etc. for them to receive salvation?

Could they be saved based on a very basic, very accurate and very simple knowlege of God's creation?

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-04-2005, 07:08 PM

Swanny, I am no scholar, but I don't think that the passages you cite tell against Free Range's view. I don't have time right now to write much, so I have indicated my concerns in boldface in the text. The basic point is this: the text establishes that accepting the word of Christ is a means to salvation; it does not establish that it is the only means.

"But NOW [not in the past] a righteousness from God, apart from law, HAS BEEN MADE KNOWN, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all WHO BELIEVE.[This says that if you believe, then rightousness shall be yours. It does not say that if you fail to believe, then rightousness won't be yours.] I There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all who believe Where does this come from?] are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus....where then is boasting? IT IS EXCLUDED. On what principle? On that of observing the law? NO, BUT ON THAT OF FAITH....is God the God of Jews only? [no] Is he not the God of the Gentiles [the non-Jewish population]? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only ONE God, who will justify the circumcised by faith [Jews] and the uncircumcised [the remaining ethnicities] through the *SAME FAITH* [in Christ and His workWhere do you get this?]." Excerpts from Rom. 3:21-30 Emphasis in caps and brackets mine.

"For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses ALL WHO CALL ON HIM, for, EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED [the antithesis: everyone who does not call on the name of the Lord will not be saved As above the "antithesis" doesn't follow. All that is being asserted is that if you call on the name of the Lord, then you will be saved.]. HOW, then, CAN they call on the one they have not believed in? And HOW CAN they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? [the rhetorical answer is that they cannot...'cannot' signifies inability...no hearing...no faith...no salvation ????]....Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. Again, this claims that hearing the word of Christ is sufficient for hearing the message of God; not that it is necessary" Excerpts from Rom 10:12-17. Emphasis in caps and brackets mine.

Esquire

11-04-2005, 07:38 PM

Freerange,

I'm sorry not to have entered this discussion sooner. I have been swamped and still am. There is a webpage that I just discovered that addresses this question head on and I think it does a decent job of it. It references a book "eternity in their hearts" which is well worth the $10 bucks or so at amazon.com.

The website is here: http://net-burst.net/hot/heathen.htm

Mike

Warped Arrow

11-05-2005, 02:58 AM

**If Hindism, Buddhism and Islam don't believe Jesus is God than how can Christianity be the same as them? That is about as basic as you can get. Christianity is completelt based on who we believe Jesus is.**

Is Jesus and God the same? I was raised to know that Jesus is the Son of God. Later I was taught that the Father, as well as the Son are the same. If this is so, then why must you "go through the Son to get to the Father"? Why not just pray to God instead of Jesus?

Also, I never meant to imply that Cristianity, nor any other religion was the same, only that the basic principles were.

**Yes, allot of religions believe in a higher power that is savior and judge, but they are not all the same. In order for a lie to even sound plausible a little truth needs to be mixed in with it and that is why some religions seem so similar...but only one of them can be completely true.**

I was speaking about the deep down part. What you get after you thin out all the glitter and shine. Bare bones. All religions are basically the same in this stand point. I am not going to sit here and say that a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Pagan are all the exact same thing. But I will say this: the CORE beliefs are simular, if not the same.

I want to reiterate the fact that I am NOT bashing, critisizing, or calling names............well, I may call names, but they will be good ones! :)

I want to learn as well as teach, I hope we can do that. If anyone would like to know a bit more about the older religions, feel free to PM me. I will NOT try to convert, as that isnt my place.

Swanny

11-05-2005, 06:29 AM

Morning, Ray! I certainly don't have all the answers, but i'll give it a whirl.

I agree with you concerning Rom 1:20 but IF that is all that is ever learned or shared...would that be enough?

I think it would be if that person believes in those things that were revealed about God through His creation.

It seems to me that IF creation was enough to take a sinful being into a right standing with a Holy God, then it greatly minimize the need for the hearing of the Gospel message...resulting in making little of Christ. If someone could be saved via acknowledging God through his creation, then it seems to follow that all could be possibly be saved this way.

Creation doesn't adequately convey the message of the Creator being grossly offended by the creature's rebellion and contenment to remain in mutiny against the Captain (though the death of the spotless Lamb of God adequately showed to what extent He was offended). It also doesn't convey at all the necessary message of substitutionary atonement - that the just and holy wrath of God owed to us has been taken out on someone else, and that the Substitute's righteousness has been undeservingly credited to the sinner's account. It doesn't convey Christ as crucified and risen! WHAT, then, would a person's faith be in? God as Creator? The object can only be Christ - no other object, even that of creation, is adequate. The only Mediator between God and man is Christ. That's why the underlying theme of all the Scriptures is what God has intended to and will do IN CHRIST!

Furthermore, in my thinking, if someone did come to saving knowledge of God merely through what God has created, then it would seem they would have reason to boast (contrary to Rom 3:27) over and above those that 'had' to hear the Gospel to believe. Person A says to person B: "I'm saved because I shouted out 'Great Being...your creation is convicting me of my need...please, I beg of you, don't destroy me!'..I was able to figure it out and come to my senses", while Person C says to person D: "I loved my sin and my sin was my master. I heard the Gospel when I wasn't seeking it (Rom3:11) and, by His Grace, through faith I repented, turned away from my sin, and believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and am now pursuing him with all my heart." Those seem radically different in substance.

Being held accountable means we will either be saved or unsaved...correct?

I think the main point of that passage is that God is holding unrepentant men liable for their sinfulness....so if he holds men liable, then eternal wrath is a certainty for them.

With that being said God could do both depending on the outcome of what the person believes if they could only base it on His creation...agree or disagree?

Respectfully disagree, but desire agreement! :) This isn't an easy topic to dialogue for sure.

I also understand Native American Indian beliefs and how they are rooted in tradition as most other religions are and how our sins and lies from our forefathers are passed down from generation to generation.

With all this being said, the reality of someone being raised away from civilization unable to hear the Good News will most likely be caught up in a religion that is a deviation from the truth and therefore be unsaved...BUT...if one of these people sees God in His true glory through His creation and begins to doubt the teachings of his people...could he be saved?
I understand that the chances are highly unlikely, but could it be possible?

IMHO, not on that basis alone. Creation is a means (one of many) to salvation, just like the death of a loved one could be a catalyst for someone to start thinking of what happens after you die, but it in and of itself isn't sufficient to produce repentance from self and faith in Christ. If God is pleased to bring salvation to this individual, it will be on the basis of 'faith cometh through hearing...of the Gospel'. That's why I think Paul's point in Romans is that the Gospel message as the indispensable means for salvation.

If you believe we have to hear the Good News, what is your understanding when it comes to the mentally retarded, very young, deaf and blind, etc. and etc. for them to receive salvation?

Could they be saved based on a very basic, very accurate and very simple knowlege of God's creation?

Again, I don't think so. That's why Paul is adamant about 'the gospel [alone] being the power of God unto salvation for all who believe' in Rom. 1:16. Granted, God has the ability to save somone apart from them hearing the message, but it seems He's purposely limited Himself in bringing salvation to men via the Gospel of His Beloved Son...."for you [the Father] granted him [the Son] authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" Jn. 17:2,3 - italics mine.

The Scripture says God saved the Prophet of John the Baptist in the womb, and this was during the era of when the Gospel was a veiled mystery! Thank God it's no longer like that!

Thanks for the enjoyable mental exercise!

BLACK WOLF

11-05-2005, 06:50 AM

Warped Arrow,

I agree with you concerning the similarities of different religions. In order for something to sound half way reasonable it has to be based on some truth. The further you get away from the truth the more obsered it sounds.

What I'm trying to share with you is that it is dangerous ground to believe that they will all lead to the same place just because they have some similarities.

A dog has hair. A dog has a skeleton. A dog has 2 eyes and 2 ears. There are simialrities between dogs and humans, yet we are not the same.

As you investigate more there are differences that seperate us.

Yes, we are both mammals just as all beliefs which believe in a higher power can be described as a religion but as you get into more details the descriptions will begin to seperate into either a dog or a human.

If you are trying to find the path to a human description, you are not going to find it believing we have paws for hands and feet.

Lets say I was giving directions for you to come visit me in here in Colorado.

I tell you just to head west. If you had no clue other than that I was west of you and there were no highways, streets or signs to guide you further do you think you could find exactly where I lived?

Possible, but very unlikely.

What if I told you to take I70 to get to my house, but someone else came along and said you can also get there by taking I90?

Both have the basic similarities of heading west, but only one will take you to my doorstep.

I don't know if that makes any sense to you, but it's about the best I can do to show you where we disagree.

I would love nothing more than to say something that might cause a person to reconsider Christianity.

I've studied enough religions to understand the similarities and the differences and I'm not saying you haven't. We just see it differently.

Ray ;)

BLACK WOLF

11-05-2005, 06:56 AM

Swanny,

This one also applies to our discussion ;)

Lets say I was giving directions for you to come visit me in here in Colorado and you lived east of me.

I tell you just to head west. If you had no clue other than that I was west of you and there were no highways, streets or signs to guide you further do you think you could find exactly where I lived?

Possible, but very unlikely...and that is what we are discussing.

With only God's creation to go by could a person become saved through faith in just that?

Possible, but very unlikely....and that is why there is still a need for the Bible and for all Christians to spread the Word and give accurate directions.

Ray ;)

Swanny

11-05-2005, 08:59 AM

Ray - I may strike out going west, but if I'm destined to find you I will encounter the Gospel on the way. Big Smile!

Mike, thanks for the link...the author has a very edifying tone throughout. I don't agree with some of his basic building blocks, or presuppositions in order to arrive at agreement with his conclusions. For example:

He states in Note 2:

"In the mind of the eternal Lord, Christ was slain before the foundation of the earth (Revelation 13:8). That makes the actual historical date of Christ's sacrifice less significant than we might otherwise imagine.

Consider devout Jews living in remote Gentile countries at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Some would not have heard of Jesus until many years after his sacrifice. If they had been saved by their faith prior to Jesus' death, would they have been suddenly cut off from God from the moment of Christ's death until (if they were still living) they eventually heard the Gospel? Weren't they under the Old Testament until they heard the New? The benefits of the New Covenant can only reach those who have heard. It therefore seems logical to conclude that those who have not heard are for all practical purposes in another dispensation."

*The New Covenant Scriptures go to great lengths describing how radically different and new the post era of the cross is compared to the pre-cross times.

*Just because jews were devout doesn't mean they were truly saved. We have tons of scriptures that make this very point. If they were part of the small remnant of Jews that really loved God and had faith in Him, then the deposit of the Spirit would have been certainly been brought to them after Pentecost happened....as we have record in Acts. I can't agree with his subsequent logical conclusion.

One of my presuppositions for looking at issues like this says that the clear teaching passages should have priority over the less clear passages. I believe Romans contains many clear teaching passages that the author didn't discuss in great detail...like Rom 2, 5, and 9, and that the other scriptures he uses to build his foundation with ought to be interpreted in light of these.

I also appreciate his stating he could be wrong in his best guess of the issue. Me too!

BLACK WOLF

11-05-2005, 09:29 AM

Swanny,

LOL..BIG SMILE...I see we are not going to convince either one of us ;)

I agree. We all have a destiny which is forseen and forknown by God...BUT...aaaah...never mind...I would be just repeating myself ;)

Ray ;)

Warped Arrow

11-05-2005, 10:20 AM

I also agree that we agree that we dissagree on what we agree on. (did that make sence??)

BLACK WOLF

11-05-2005, 10:41 AM

LOL ;) I think so...but know I'm confused ;)

Ray ;)

Swanny

11-05-2005, 06:12 PM

Hi Greenghost, Perhaps this text reiterates and clarifies the same idea Paul is getting across in Rom. chptrs 3 and 10:

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God....Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:17-21,36.

No faith in Christ? No righteousness.

What do you think?

Esquire

11-05-2005, 09:18 PM

Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Light, no man comes to the Father but by Me." I don't think a biblical argument can be made that every person who has not heard certain words and said certain words, is damned.

I like the story in Narnia about the young servant of Tash (a false God) who goes to his death believing in truth, but not finding that which he seeks. He meets Aslan (the Christ figure) and recognizes him as He whom the soldier truly sought.

Some seekers of truth who have never heard of Jesus may find He whom they seek. It is not given us to know. The scripture is always fulfilled because Jesus is the one who is our advocate. He decides who gets in. He stands at the right hand of the Father and refutes the accuser, as Satan is named in Revelation.

No one comes to the Father but by Jesus. But some who never heard his name may nevertheless recognize Him as the truth they sought while living.

That having been said - all religions are not the same. All truth is from God, but not all gods are true. It would be both false and illogical to say that all religions are about the same.

Jesus did not walk the earth in many forms. He did, however, set eternity in the hearts of men in such a way that man longs for reunification with him. He set the creation to such a work of proclaiming Himself that an Incan ruler was able to reject sun worship, discover God on his own, and determine many attributes of God, including God's triune (trinatarian) nature! All without the specific revelation in the form of scripture.

God is just. To imagine that babies or retarded individuals will go to hell is distasteful to me. To imagine that they are held accountable for choices that they never got to make in also distasteful. To imagine that they are treated with mercy feels better. Luckily for me, I am not aware of any sound biblical argument that infants and the mentally retarded are damned. Or to put it another way, I am not aware of any convincing arguments that convince me it is heresy to believe that they may remain in the presence of God forever.

I personally believe that at least some who have never heard of Christ will nevertheless recognize Him when they come face to face. Just as many who say Lord Lord will be firmly rejected for God is not deceived.

But all paths do not wind their way eventually to the top of the mountain. And hardly anybody wants them to!

Carbon Caster

11-05-2005, 10:58 PM

Just wanted to chime in on the infants and those with infiants minds going to heaven. The Bible says that David was told after his sin with Bathsheba and the death of the baby that came from their adultry, that he "the Baby" could not come to him "David", but that he "David" would go to him "the Baby". I believe that this is the only Biblical basis that we can base our belief on. Yes, I believe acording to the Bible that Infants and those with Infants minds will be in Heaven.

I also believe according to the Bible, that we have a JUST God, and that one MUST accept the free gift of salvation through Christ to go to heaven. I also believe it is every Christian's Job to get the gospel to every creature.

Acts 1:8

Cato

11-06-2005, 12:24 PM

Great discussion guys.

Swanny

11-06-2005, 05:19 PM

Hi Mike, I may not have communicated cleary in my referencing the issue of where do babies go when they die....

Emotions aside as best as we can, I don't see the argument can be made either way from the clear texts of Scripture. It's a mystery, IMHO, with conclusions on either side built more on assumption than revealed truth.

Yes, we have Scriptures like the passage of David's son's death as Brian pointed out (BTW, Hi Brian! :) ), but David was a prophet and was privy to information as his words were inspired by the Spirit. The text says only that David's son was with God...God was pleased to save this particular child. It doesn't say that all babies will be with God, even though our emotions may desperately want the passage to say this. To think this passage teaches this would be to force our understanding on the text, IMHO. Just because God chose to be gracious to one, doesn't mean he's obligated to save them all.

Here is a very clear text in a didactic letter to the Romans:

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death [physical and spiritual] through sin, and this way death came to all men, because all sinned ...But the gift is not like the trespass, For if the many died [I]by the trespass of the one man ...Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgement followed one sin and brought condemnation [to all]....For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man,....Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men....For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners..." Excerpts from Rom. 5:12,15-19, with emphasis and brackets mine.

In fact, in vs. 20 it says the 'law was added so that the trespass might increase.' The trespass (which is the basis for the judicial sentence of spiritual death) was imputed, but the increase is our fault. Babies don't have the ability to increase the trespass, but, nonetheless, the death sentence is absolutely deserved because of Adam's disobedience imputed to them.

It seems very clear according to this passage, IMHO, that God would be perfectly just to sentence a baby (who are all born an enemy of the Cross) to eternal wrath due to the consequences of the high-handed crimes of ONE man imputed to them. Does He do this to some babies, all babies, or no babies? There isn't enough information in Scripture for me to be confident that I could look someone in the eye who has just lost a young child to comfort them with 'your child is safe in the arms of God'.

In fact, my friends who lost both boys at separate times...one was about 10 months or so, and one was four or five, had their pastor preach at the funeral of both (my wife, kids and I were there). On the second funeral, after John Macarthur (a good guy BTW) published his emotional driven book "Safe in the Arms of God" the pastor preached with absolute confidence that they were both with God, quoting various passages of Scripture that seemed very amibiguous concerning the issue. I'm sure he thought this would bring comfort to those who were standing around the gravesite, but it actually made the parents very uncomfortable as they were satisfied in not knowing what God sovereignly did, but were finding much satisfaction and rest in knowing that He does ALL THINGS WELL.

Well, I hope this doesn't get me into more of a pickle. :)

greenghost

11-07-2005, 10:02 AM

Swanny, thanks. But I find the above passage as equivocal as the other two. Consider this passage: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Since this passage invokes the terminology of "rejection" it presupposes having hear of Christ.

This passage may be less equivocal: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." But in context I don't think it is particularly compelling, either.

However, I will reiterate my first sentiment on this thread, worded more strongly. To my mind, if Christianity says that belief in Christ is necessary for salvation, then I believe that is a VERY, VERY good reason NOT to be a Christian. What kind of religion maintains that God is Perfect, but nevertheless attributes to Him behaviors and judgments which are manifestly imperfect?! And no, we shouldn't accept the hocus-pocus response that these assessments are based on a limited human understanding--after all, that is all God has given me to work with.

:2cents:

Swanny

11-07-2005, 04:29 PM

Greenghost - I went back and looked at your first post concerning your issue. Here's a quote:

"And yet, God has made the world in such a way that otherwise perfectly good, perfectly reasonable and sincere people can fail to believe in Him. But if God required belief for admission to Heaven, then He would be a deciever. Hence, God cannot possibly require belief, as claimed."

Ray made some good observations in the next post, but I didn't see your response. I'll just reiterate on a similar vein:

If people are perfectly good/reasonable and sincere, then why would they need to follow a Holy God's prescription for sinful man to gain a right standing with him in order to avoid his just wrath against sin and rebellion? They would have a righteousness of their own which would forfeit/cancel any supposed or real need for alien righteousness.

Make sense?

larry

11-07-2005, 05:27 PM

Behaviors and judgments that are manifestly imperfect? hocus -pocus responce?

By whose standards?

I suppose if you believe the Scriptures to be nothing more than hocus-pocus writings, then there really is no way to respond to those statements.

I'm reminded of God's reponse to Job in chapters 38-41;

"Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now, prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determinedits measurements? Surly you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were it's foundations fastened? Or who laid it's cornerstone,

Have you commanded the morningsince your days began, and caused the dawn to know it's place, that it might take hold of the ends of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths? Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Or have you seen the doors of the shadow of death?Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell me if you know all this."

God's ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts.

Tell me does not the potter have the right to do what he sees fit with the clay?
can the pot say to the potter why have you made me this way?

Quite often we percieve a god that fits our mold, not the God who is. The truth of the matter is that Jesus Christ was set apart as the sacrificial lamb of God before the foundations of the earth!

greenghost

11-08-2005, 08:47 AM

Swanny, Well, I was intending to post an explanation of my views vis a vis Ray's post, but after writing about two pages I figured nobody really gave a flip--so I deleted it.

Let me clarify one thing: I was using "perfectly" in that post in that post in a normal, but somewhat nonstandard way. The use is the one invoked when you, for instance, tell your kid who is refusing to eat his dinner that he is wasting a perfectly good meal. The implication here isn't that the meal is perfect, but only that there is nothing importantly wrong with it considered as a meal or something like that.

This is roughly what I intended, sorry for the misleading phrasing. Let me put the point without that particular problem. I know people who are every bit as sincere, caring, intellectually honest, and morally upstanding as the most devout of religious people, but who are either agnostic or atheistic or who subscribe to some other religious system. What distinguishes someone like you from them isn't traceable back to some shortcoming on their part which you fail to exhibit (at least not anything that is within their control). You might have a certain religious insight that they fail to have, but they don't lack that insight for any lack of trying or lack of sincerity or whatever. Now these people have done everything possible to see their way to the correct view, and yet they have come to a different conclusion. How is it that a just God could hold such individuals responsible for their failure of belief? To my mind, this is just a lot of nonsense: God is perfectly just but acts unjustly!

And, to repeat, saying that I am being presumptuous by applying human standards of justice to God is IMO a lot of rhetorical voodoo. If your God isn't even just by human standards, then most assuredly He is not perfectly just. But even if this is not true, that is beside the point. The fact is that I have been created with certain human characteristics and capacities. These are what I have to go on and I have to make my best judgements to the best of my abilities based on my limited understanding of the true nature of things. But I submit that God has so created the world that two individuals can equally discharge their responsibilities to understand these things and nevertheless come to different conclusions. But if that is true and something important (like salvation) hangs on which conclusion you come to, then I am confident in saying that God is a deciever. And if God is a deciever, then I should be no more willing to submit to Him simply because he controls my destiny than I should be willing to submit to a tyrranical government that controls my destiny.

No, God is a Perfect Being. And I submit that it follows from this that God does not demand belief in Him for salvation. Actually, I believe something much stronger: Coercion is a sign of imperfection. Punishment is a form of coercion. Consequently, God does not punish anyone. You or I might choose damnation by knowingly and unrepentently choosing evil, but it is ourselves, not God, who does the condemning.

Again, my two cents.

Swanny

11-08-2005, 12:48 PM

Hi Marc, Calling you Greenghost just didn't seem personal enough. :)

Hopefully some others will have some thoughts as well, but I still am interested in your concept of perfection.

If you stated that God is morally perfect and absolutely pure and holy and undefiled,

then what about man? Is his person tainted with sin and wickedness and corruption? Is he morally pure, or morally defiled?

Just wondering what you are presupposing in order to arrive at your conclusions. Your example of meat and potatoes is obviously morally neutral.

Larry Hatfield

11-08-2005, 02:08 PM

matt, i was lectured on the local, klikitat, beliefs by a lady that was in excess of 100 years old back in 1950.
there was a parable to jesus in one oral history she told. it involved an indian who had never married and kept to himself but shared thoughts with other indians on the proper way to live such as not lying or stealing or thinking about anothers possessions.
when he heard that the okanogan people were having trouble among themselves he traveled north to see what was happening. when he got there he found that tamanawus, the devil in the belief, had assumed the body of a beaver and was causing all the strife in the area.
he then changed to the shape of a coyote, the beavers natural enemy, and dove in the water and fought the devil.
the fight went all the way to the ocean, creating the columbia river gorge with their struggles. when they reached the ocean the coyote grabbed the beaver and dove to the bottom, killing both of them. she said since that
happened the indians had no more troubles among themselves until the white man came.
if you are interested in native beliefs i would suggest you go to the ethnology sections of a good public library and read some of the old first hand translations of legends and beliefs. father eels is one that comes to mind. and there are many others .

BLACK WOLF

11-08-2005, 03:53 PM

Marc (greenghost),

You seem to believe there is a need for salvation. If that is true, what do you believe we need to be saved from?

The way I see it is there is no such thing as coercion concerning God and choosing to believe in Him. Our choice is chosen freely without Him forcing us to choose one way or the other. With every choice we make there will always be an outcome and that outcome is called a consequence.

The only thing God requires us to do in this situation is to make a choice. He requires it because He knows that true love is chosen freely not forced or coerced...or do you disagree?

No matter what we do or don't do, it will always be based on a choice. There is no escaping that reality. We have to choose if we want to do something and choosing to do nothing is also a choice involving consequence.

God was wise enough to let us experience parenthood so we can experience some of the ways how He feels and deals with us.

I punished my daughter when she messed up. I punished her out of love because I wanted her to learn to make the correct choice the next time.

Is there something evil or wrong about punishment when punishment is warrented?

Is it love to allow your child to make mistake after mistake without holding them accountable?

What would that teach them?

If there isn't anything wrong with punishment, then how can you say that God doesn't punish people for making poor, wrong and/or evil decisions?

If He didn't how could He be fair?

You said - "Consequently, God does not punish anyone."

Is you idea of a perfect god based on a being that allows any choice to go unpunished if in fact you believe God doesn't punish anyone?

Ray ;)

Matt

11-08-2005, 03:55 PM

greenghost

11-09-2005, 04:48 AM

Swanny + Ray,

Not sure I can answer all the questions raised in a systematic way. But I will do my best.

First, I believe that people are instrinsically morally (and logically) imperfect, in the sense that we are so constructed that we are both tempted to make immoral choices and sufficiently unwise not to resist those temptations. I do not, however, accept the view that people are intrinsically immoral in the sense that prior to actually behaving wrongly we are tainted with some sort of original sin. I find this latter doctrine of questionable coherence. I hope that some of the ensuing comments will help exlain this issue more fully.

Second, I agree that we should draw a distinction between punishment and consequences. If I drink too much tonight, one consequence will be that tomorrow morning I will be hung over. But my hang over is in no sense a punishment for my induglence. On the other hand, if I drink too much and drive, then (if I am stopped) I will suffer certain punitive consequences. These punitive consequences are a form of punishment (and, so, a form of coercion). My position, then, is that while immoral behaviors will have certain negative consequences, these consequences follow naturally from the nature of the behavior and not as a punitive response on the part of God.

Here is an attempt to explain this sentiment more fully. Suppose that God does not engage in coercive punishment. What, then, would compel us to abide by the moral law? If you have a sort of "legalistic" model of morality, you will be at a loss. On such a model, morals are laws which demand compliance because a failure to comply with them is punished. Take away the punishment, and you take away any rationale for compliance. But an alternative model, is that moral principles are intrinsically compelling: any intelligent being who explicitly contemplates a correct moral priniciple with an unbiased and sincere attitude will feel compelled to act in accordance with that principle. And surely that is the correct view of morality. I do not refrain from murdering people because murder induces the wrath of God. Even if it does, that is not why I refrain from murdering people; it is at most an additional, self-interested reason for refraining. Rather, I refrain from murder because I recognize the intrinsic value of other human beings and the fact that murder is destructive of (or disrespectful of) that value.

Now, I happen to believe that God did not create the moral laws (or the logical laws), but I do believe that God "created" us in such a way as to recognize the moral laws as intrinsically compelling. And given that we are so constituted, the consequences of transgressing the moral law follow naturally from the transgression and are not a superimposed punitive form of coercive punishment. [Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment provides a kind of case study of the situation as I see it.]

But, of course, since we are all morally imperfect, all of us will to a greater or lesser extent suffer the natural consequences of moral transgression. Beyond this, I can only speculate.

Finally, Ray, I do regard parental coercion as a sign of imperfection. Not that there is something wrong with punishing our kids, but that we are driven to punish them because we are insufficiently wise and powerful to compell them to behave in any other way. And it is always better to get kids to comply via seeing the rational for our principles than through coercive means. [Remember Kant's distinction between acting in accordance with duty and acting from duty.] If you haven't read Stephen Covey's book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, he gives some good examples of this sort of "principle-based" parenting.

BLACK WOLF

11-09-2005, 06:44 AM

Marc,

You said - "I believe that people are instrinsically morally (and logically) imperfect, in the sense that we are so constructed that we are both tempted to make immoral choices and sufficiently unwise not to resist those temptations."

If you believe we are constructed morally imperfect, what is it exactly that makes us that way?

The ability to make wrong choices is not an imperfection, but a perfect example of God's perfection in creation. God's will is that we choose freely and are not mere puppets. Again, you can't have true love without it being chosen.

Do you have kids? I can't remember if you shared that with us.

You said - "And it is always better to get kids to comply via seeing the rational for our principles than through coercive means."

Have you ever tried to rationalize with a 3yrs. old? All the wisdom in the world can't be rationalized in such a way that a child will comprehend it and understand it.

It isn't coercion when you use wisdom to tell your children what the consequences of their choices will be. That's reality. That's using wisdom.

Punishment is only a tool to use after you have shared your wisdom with your child and than hold them accountable for their actions.

You said - "Now, I happen to believe that God did not create the moral laws (or the logical laws), but I do believe that God "created" us in such a way as to recognize the moral laws as intrinsically compelling."

If God didn't create the moral laws than who or what did?

I'm still curious about some of these other questions. I might have missed some of the answers and I appologize if I did.

Do you believe true love is chosen freely and not forced or coerced...or do you disagree?

Is there something evil or wrong about punishment when punishment is warrented?

If there is nothing wrong with it when it is used appropriately than it must be perfect...correct?

Is it love to allow your child to make mistake after mistake without holding them accountable?

What would that teach them?

Is your idea of a perfect god based on a being that allows any choice to go unpunished if in fact you believe God doesn't punish anyone?

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-09-2005, 10:30 AM

Ray,

I have two kids: a girl, 7, and a boy, 5. Both kids were born while I was in graduate school and so for about the first 5 years I was the primary caretaker. (My wife worked days to support us.) So, yes, I do have some sense of what parenting is all about.

Suppose I make a rule: no writing on the walls. Then I decide on consequences if the rule is broken (a spanking, a time out, whatever). These consequences have no natural connection to the rule--they are imposed by fiat. If the kid doesn't write on the wall out of fear of a spanking, then he has conformed to my wishes but for reasons that are entirely self-interested. I could equally well have made a different rule: do not ever use purple crayons. If you do, I will spank you. The kid might not use purple crayons either, and for exactly the same reason that he doesn't write on the wall. The point is that punishment provides the same motivation for the child whether the rule is reasonable or arbitrary. On the other hand, a child who has even an inkling of the actual grounds for the first rule (respect for one's parents, for other people's property, for one's own property) will suffer the natural consequences of transgressing the first rule. Even very young kids in my experience feel badly for betraying trust or being disrespectful. [And FWIW I do punish my kids, but I regard this as a consequence of my own shortcomings.]

If God didn't create the moral laws than who or what did? They were not created at all; they exist necessarily.

If you believe we are constructed morally imperfect, what is it exactly that makes us that way? Limited intelligence, primarily. However, I do believe that desires are important here. Specifically, I believe that desires come whole cloth--it is not possible to only have just good appetites. But given that desires are necessary for us to achieve our own highest good, we must also have those temptations that drive us away from it. If you want a metaphor: it is a design constraint on created something that has free will.

Do you believe true love is chosen freely and not forced or coerced...or do you disagree? Freely chosen.

Is there something evil or wrong about punishment when punishment is warranted? A qualified no. If one MUST rely on coercion, then this is indicative of some limitation in power or knowledge.

If there is nothing wrong with it when it is used appropriately then it must be perfect...correct? No.

Is it love to allow your child to make mistake after mistake without holding them accountable? Well, it doesn't follow from the fact that my child makes a mistake that I must hold him or her accountable. For instance, my child might hold himself accountable. Suppose your kid goes to school and hits another kid for no reason. You spank him and ground him. Next day, same thing. More punishment. Next day, same thing. More punishment. ... Point being: if your response to your child's mistake is effective in keeping him from making the mistake again, then your response was loving (whether or not it was "holding him accountable"). And if punishing the kid doesn't help prevent future mistakes, then "holding him accountable" isn't exactly what I'd consider a loving response. [There are complexities here that I am not going to try to address.] You seem to assume that coercive punishment is the only means of affecting behavior.

Is your idea of a perfect god based on a being that allows any choice to go unpunished if in fact you believe God doesn't punish anyone? I have argued that a Perfect Being does not traffic in coercive punishment. But I have suggested that immoral choices have bad consequences. Let me give you a parable. Suppose that God gave each one of us an exquisitely beautiful music box and he made us in such a way that at a fundamental level we longed to see and hear and touch that box. We recognized its absolute beauty and desired deeply to preserve it. But since we also had free will we could for whatever reason destroy the music box. Suppose one day in a fit of anger I throw my music box and smash it to bits. Now, given the way in which I have been constructed, I will be utterly devasted by my action. There is no further need for God to come down and mete out some further punishment. Of course, I might try to get around my anguish (hold it at arms length) by claiming to love what is ugly rather than what is beautiful and God might at some point want to show me that this is not really so.

That parable could be expanded and made more complex to fit my actual views, but it captures the kernel of the idea pretty well.

BLACK WOLF

11-09-2005, 11:14 AM

Marc,

Thanks for the in depth answers...even though we disagree on some ;)

Ray ;)

BLACK WOLF

11-09-2005, 02:18 PM

Marc,

You said - "You seem to assume that coercive punishment is the only means of affecting behavior."

Absolutely not. It's a last resort. First I teach by example and with words and than I will use punishment as a consequences to a wrong choice that was previously taught. Punishment can be anything from taking away tv privalages, no desert, no PS2, being grounded, cleaning toilets, doing extra chores and spankings.

God was wise enough to know that in order for us to have more of a reason to behave, there had to be more than just feelings of guilt.

You let a child get away with something without consequences and hope guilt and your words will be enough, studies have shown they will do it more than if consequences were given and followed through with when needed.

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-09-2005, 03:18 PM

Ray,

"God was wise enough to know that in order for us to have more of a reason to behave, there had to be more than just feelings of guilt."

But why should God need to give us "more of a reason"? Why do you think that God is so limited that He couldn't give us enough of a reason just in virtue of creating in us a fundamental and deep appreciation for the moral law? Doesn't creating us with a less fundamental and less deep appreciation for morality and then tacking on an extraneous punitive factor seem like a bit of a shoddy job?

In part, you downplay my position by suggesting that punishment is real and severe, whereas the natural consequences of moral transgression are mere feelings of guilt. But I don't think that is right. Fix in your mind, for the sake of a concrete case, someone who has just (unjustly) killed another human being and who has also come to fully realize the magnitude of their act. The psychological state of that individual is anything but "mere feelings of guilt". These are the sorts of realizations that can literally crush people. This person's anguish is not punishment, it is a consequence of their realization.

Swanny

11-09-2005, 04:03 PM

Thanks, Marc, for the thoughts.

"I do not, however, accept the view that people are intrinsically immoral in the sense that prior to actually behaving wrongly we are tainted with some sort of original sin. I find this latter doctrine of questionable coherence. I hope that some of the ensuing comments will help exlain this issue more fully."

It appears you are totally using your own reasoning abilities to come to this conclusion. IF your logic has faulty presuppositions, then your conclusions most likely will be faulty. That's the bottom line...

Do I personally have the authority to tell you that your reaonsing is flawed?

I don't think so, nor do i think anyone else in the group has.

Cato posted earlier regarding the perspective that most here are presupposing the Scripture to be the inspired Word of God without error. I personally have subscribed to this view and have entrusted my life to the study and application of the truths therein, which means that when the Scriptures *constantly* present me as evil by nature with a 'desperately wicked and deceitful mind' capable of deceiving my own self over and over and over...

then I must repent of my fleshly, mutinous desire to rationalize and reason MY OWN WAY, and submit in faith to God's way of rationalizing and looking at things. This is what I owe to my Sovereign Creator....to be in a constant state of humility before him. I'm not the captain of my own fate...my only hope for salvation *from my sinful self* lies in viewing Christ alone as my substitutionary atonement and continually taking his yoke upon myself to learn of Him and His ways.

Obviously, those of us here who do subscribe to this view don't see eye to eye 100% on every issue, but that's what makes this forum potentially beneficial....the 'iron sharpens iron' perspective.

I've enjoyed the privilege to chat with you.

BLACK WOLF

11-09-2005, 05:20 PM

Marc,

You asked - "But why should God need to give us "more of a reason"?

That is the sad part. I wish it were that simple. If that is all it took to stop behaving inappropriately most of us would have, but the reality is that it isn't.

How many inmates leave prison only to come back as repeat offenders?

Have you lied more than once?

Have you done something you know was wrong more than once?

If you are anything like me you have and you still do it today.

I also believe it was set up this way so we can FULLY understand the magnitude and repercussions of disobedience and the need for salvation.

So if a man kills and rapes your wife and daughter, but feels crushed with feelings of guilt afterwards, do you feel that would be enough to punish him and cause him to become a better person?

Is that how we should treat all murders and rapists? If not why?

Based on your words, it appears you do not believe God has created consequences to our wrong choices other than guilt. If God is perfect as you describe Him and only created feelings of guilt to cause us to see the error in our ways, than how can we justify punishing people that rape and kill people if God's ways are already perfect with only using guilt?

If God's ways are perfect, yet we deal with issues like this differently how than can our ways be perfect?

You asked - "Why do you think that God is so limited that He couldn't give us enough of a reason just in virtue of creating in us a fundamental and deep appreciation for the moral law?"

That's just it...I don't believe God is so limited. He made us perfectly in that we could choose freely. I believe He originally made us so that there would be about a 50/50 chance to do what is right or do what is wrong. Having even odds is fair. It would be unfair to increase one or the other. God is infinitely perfect and infinitely wise in how He created us. I believe the odds are now more in favor of us doing what is wrong, because sins are passed on from generation to generation and our selfish desires become greater and greater the further we get away from God.

You asked - "Doesn't creating us with a less fundamental and less deep appreciation for morality and then tacking on an extraneous punitive factor seem like a bit of a shoddy job?"

Only if you don't understand fairness and equal opportunity.

Mere feelings of guilt can be just as severe as other forms of punishment...it just depends upon the person. Some people feel less guilt over some things than others do and vice versa.

Your problem lies within categorizing all people as thinking and feeling the same. Where one person maybe crushed by guilt another could care less.

The imperfection, if it existed, would be that God would have created us exactly as He has, but didn't give us a choice to be saved from our own selfishness. The fact is He did and that one simple thing is to believe in Him and trust in Him through faith.

When a person truly chooses to believe in God as the Bible describes, it is a choice based on letting go of the selfish nature that lives within each and everyone of us.

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-10-2005, 06:56 AM

Swanny, Very briefly. I agree that you have pin-pointed the bulk of the disagreement. I wonder if you (or others) have considered the possibility that God might well be unhappy with uncritical devotion to Him or His Word? I am not making this point lightly or flippantly. It is, in fact, the point of departure of my theological perspective. Specifically, I believe that without trying to first understand God's nature (in our admittedly limited way), we cannot answer questions about whether we should be literalists about Biblical interpretation or not. If God has certain characteristics, then being a literalist will be the logical course to follow; but if He has different characteristics, then it will be logical to follow a different course of action. For this reason, I begin theologically with the question, "What can we understand about the nature of a Perfect Being?" If literalism follows from God's Perfection, then your view is vindicated. Unfortunately, I don't believe it does and consequently our paths diverge.

And I deeply appreciate the opportunity to have so many sharp minds take a critical look at my ideas, many of which are still in the development stage. The privelege is entirely mine.

Ray, Let me ask you a further question. If God punishes wrong-doers (over and above having them fully realize the nature of their transgressions), what is the nature of this punishment? More picturesquely, what is Hell like? Isn't it pretty obviously going to be about [I]psychological torment, despair and alienation; regret and remorse of an incredibly profound sort? And isn't that what I am suggesting are the natural consequences of various moral transgressions when fully understood?

I actually don't think we disagree very much on the actual negative consequences of immoral behavior. What we disagree on is the origin of those consequences. For you, the consequences arise because God doesn't want us to behave immorally; they are sanctions. Your model is one of a carrot and stick. For me, they are the inevitable consequence of an intelligent mind coming fully to terms with its choices.

BLACK WOLF

11-10-2005, 08:07 AM

Hi Marc,

You asked - "If God punishes wrong-doers (over and above having them fully realize the nature of their transgressions), what is the nature of this punishment?"

That's just it...I don't believe guilt alone can cause a person to FULLY understand the magnitude and repercussions of disobedience and the need for salvation. Sure, I believe guilt can cause a person to partially understand the nature of their transgressions, but most likely they will not understand it FULLY or completely.

We are still allot like children. A child can fill guilt for disobeying a parent and understand the basics of it, but they don't always FULLY understand the repercussions of their choice to disobey.

You asked - "More picturesquely, what is Hell like?" ""Isn't it pretty obviously going to be about psychological torment, despair and alienation; regret and remorse of an incredibly profound sort?"

I agree with you. I believe a big part of it is going to be about psychological torment, despair and alienation; regret and remorse of an incredibly profound sort. I believe it will be a realization of the truth in everything and that truth will cause a person to be tormented because they realized they choose their path and their choice wasn't forced upon them. The only thing that was forced will be the consequence of their choice based on being previously educated concerning that choice.

You asked - "And isn't that what I am suggesting are the natural consequences of various moral transgressions when fully understood?"

Yes, if and when they are FULLY understood, but as you know there isn't anything we can do or understand that will keep us from ever sinning again while we are here on earth. Why does the word "hypocrite" exist and why do we continue to do things over and over again we inherently know is wrong?

Yes, I believe God does use the carrot and the stick for positive results just as Satan uses the carrot and the stick similarly but for negative results.

Those are the only tools a being can use without forcing their choice upon another being and making the choice for them.

If God and Satan forced us to make certain choices, we would be nothing more than mere puppets not responsible for our choices.

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-10-2005, 08:21 AM

"[B]ut as you know there isn't anything we can do or understand that will keep us from ever sinning again while we are here on earth. Why does the word "hypocrite" exist and why do we continue to do things over and over again we inherently know is wrong?"

Ray, this cuts equally against your view and mine. Even if God holds out an other worldly punishment, it doesn't effect anything here any more than it does on my view.

"Yes, I believe God does use the carrot and the stick for positive results just as Satan uses the carrot and the stick similarly but for negative results. Those are the only tools a being can use without forcing their choice upon another being and making the choice for them."

This may be the heart of the matter. As I see it, carrots and sticks are forms of coercion and so restrictions on free will. This was, in effect, what my "no writing with purple crayons" example was supposed to suggest.

I choose to act morally (to the extent that I am able) not out of fear of punishment (not even partially out of fear of punishment), but because I have some vague inkling of the fundamental beauty of a moral life. [Sorry to use the flowery language, but I don't know how else to express it.] I would act the same way whether there is punishment or not--THAT is free choice!

BLACK WOLF

11-10-2005, 11:08 AM

Marc,

You said - "Ray, this cuts equally against your view and mine. Even if God holds out an other worldly punishment, it doesn't effect anything here any more than it does on my view."

This would be true if our views were the same. My view is that God can use consequences as a carrot to try and show us the full extent of our need for Him and His salvation.

You seem to believe guilt is all we need. I believe we need consequences as an added means to begin to understand sin even more, but I don't believe it is the end all. I just believe it is an added tool God uses to try and get us to come back to Him.

All punishment does is cause someone to weight the consequences a little more than just relying on their potential feelings of guilt. Like I've said, I believe punishment is merely a tool. The answer that solves everything is believing in God through faith.

You said - "I would act the same way whether there is punishment or not--THAT is free choice!"

Again...that is you personally...there are plenty of other examples of people feeling and acting differently.

How can carrots and sticks be coercion if it isn't forced but tempted?

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-10-2005, 11:57 AM

"How can carrots and sticks be coercion if it isn't forced but tempted?"

I am not sure what you mean by 'coercion'. Typically, coercion is the use of a threat in an attempt to get someone to behave in a certain way. More broadly, most philosophers would also take rewards to be a form of coercion if they are not natural consequences of the desired action and they are sufficiently desirable that a person will find them difficult to resist. [E.g., a pedophile who offers a kid some candy to get in the car is coercing her.]

So coercive action doesn't imply that the coercee is "forced" to behave a certain way. What is required is that there will be certain hard to resist consequences of acting a certain way and those consequences are imposed on the situation by the coercer. This is why it makes sense to talk about one's choices being coerced.

"My view is that God can use consequences as a carrot to try and show us the full extent of our need for Him and His salvation."

I see. I don't agree, but I see what you are getting at.

Here is another way of putting/supporting my view. Define maximal coercion as the use of sufficient force that an individual's choices are completely restricted (i.e., the individual has no choice but to perform the action). Maximal coercion is obviously a way of eliminating free will. Less than maximal coercion is a way of restricting free will without eliminating it.

The question is: why would God opt for the middle ground? Give us complete free will or none at all. But don't give us some restricted amount of free will.

On my view, God has given us complete and unrestricted free choice. The negative consequences of immoral behavior follow from the nature of the act and are not superimposed coercive consequences. On you view, God has given us a significant amount of free will, but has restricted it to some extent by superimposing coercive punishment on certain forms of action.

Swanny

11-10-2005, 12:13 PM

"I wonder if you (or others) have considered the possibility that God might well be unhappy with uncritical devotion to Him or His Word?"

Hey Marc, I don't think I'm being 'uncritically devoted' at all....on one hand, I don't have a lock and key on truth in my own understanding of who God is and such, therefore, I'm constantly striving to understand the Scriptures in a way that will produce changes within my own thoughts (which will ultimately reveal itself in changed behavior). The Scriptures reveal me to be fundamentally errant, fallible and foolish from birth. Plenty of clear, coherent texts that speak to this issue, for sure.

On the other hand, I don't think Scripture contradicts itself being it's God's perfect Word without error, so any contradiction lies inherently in my own faulty perception and understanding. God certainly isn't illogical and of course, I really don't think I am characterized by being illogical or irrational, but the issue is WHOSE logic is to be emulated and cherished? Who has the right to define what true logic looks like? I don't - being a mere sinful creature. God's logic is pure, my logic is tainted...therefore, when I *critically* study His Word my current view is that logic makes a fine mistress, but a terrible master.

And an added element is what I spoke to earlier in this thread about the mysterious element of God and His nature....mysteries and logic aren't exactly twin sisters, are they? :) If they were, then there would be no God, as in Supreme-Self-Existent Being. Go figure, eh? :)

Put another way, my constant goal is not to put myself as the critical judge of Scripture, but rather, God through his Word sits in critical judgement of me. God's Word is the standard, the rule, not my own conception of what is logical. My responsibility is to allow my mind to be transformed, or changed, or renewed according to His Will as revealed in His Word (Rom. 12:2, I Cor. 2).

Don't know if I'm making any 'logical' sense. :)

"Specifically, I believe that without trying to first understand God's nature (in our admittedly limited way), we cannot answer questions about whether we should be literalists about Biblical interpretation or not. If God has certain characteristics, then being a literalist will be the logical course to follow; but if He has different characteristics, then it will be logical to follow a different course of action."

Ah, another debatable issue in and of itself. Guess we'd have to agree on a common defintion of what 'literal' means and what it doesn't mean.

Do you think all of Scripture is God's Perfect Word? Why or why not?

greenghost

11-10-2005, 01:52 PM

"I don't think I'm being 'uncritically devoted' at all." Sorry, poor choice of words. But I gotta run...

BLACK WOLF

11-10-2005, 03:43 PM

Marc,

You said - "I am not sure what you mean by 'coercion'. Typically, coercion is the use of a threat in an attempt to get someone to behave in a certain way."

I guess I don't view the options as a threat because God gave us laws to live by. I view them as a reality to protect us. I view it the same way as I view laws here such as driving laws. I don't feel threatened by a law to drive the speed limit...Do you feel threatened by our laws?

I think the better word choice would be tempted not coerced, but there are a few people here that think there is a better word we could use besides instinctive to describe a style of shooting that uses the subconscious mind to aim ;)

You asked - "Define maximal coercion as the use of sufficient force that an individual's choices are completely restricted (i.e., the individual has no choice but to perform the action)."

For me, an example of maximal coercion would be to give us only one choice and that choice would lead to a negative outcome.

I also believe God has put certain restrictions upon us. Some examples are: We can't fly as a bird can, even though we can make things that can carry us in flight. We are mortal. We can't move in and out of different dimensions of time and we can't move back and forth within material and spiritual planes.

If we ourselves could be exactly the same as God, there would be no need for Him.

Logic and reality tells us that we are restricted, but can move and choose freely within those restrictions. Yes, we are completely free to make choices, but we are not free to do whatever we want.

In other words, we have complete freedom to make any choice we want, but we don't have the power to necessarily fulfill it or grant it.

If we are not restricted as you seem to believe tell me if you can do any of these: Fly exactly as a bird does. Cheat death and live forever. Travel at will into the past and than into the future. Create life out of nothing.

Ray ;)

greenghost

11-10-2005, 04:40 PM

Ray, replace 'threat' with 'negative consequence which would not otherwise accompany the act' and the point holds without change.

Second, the point about free will is specific to morality and I am happy to so restrict it.

Gotta run...

String Tracker

11-10-2005, 06:09 PM

ok.... I kinda scanned threw the threads above and I rarely post anything here.

for one Im a Wiccan. now Im not saying that MY choice of religion is right nor your choice is right. It is what works for me.

now Im not totally into the practice of Wicca but from everything Ive read it is a religion based upon "self belief" and nature. So someone can be a wiccan yet still worship the Christian God, its all in what you in your heart believe in. I for one worship the Goddess who most commonly refer to her as "Mother Earth". To me the Goddess is everywhere I look. She is the grass I walk on, the air I breathe, in the trees that give me shade on a warm summers day, etc.... Everything I can see touch around me it part of the Goddess.

check out http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org)

asharrow

11-10-2005, 06:46 PM

Well, I'm kind of amazed that so many opinions are offered on this. If there is a God who is intelligent enough, wise enough and powerful enough to create all that is, that God is certainly able to cause men to put his message to us in writing.

He is also not at a loss for words to do that, having created words and languages, even mixed them all up once to stop men's misguided efforts.

Here is what He says about those folks who have never read or heard:

In the Gospel of John, chapter 3 verses 18, He says: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: But he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

If you read the rest of John's gospel, you will find that the belief must include that Jesus is "God the Son," that all have fallen short of God's standard, that Jesus paid for our failure to meet that standard by dying in our place. The infinite God dying for a finite period to pay an infinite penaltly for us. And that He returned from the dead and is now in heaven, acting as our attorney when Satan accuses us to God the father.

Romans chapter 9 is also very instructive about the foolishness of trying to tell God how he should operate.

Bible's can be had for little money and are of infinite worth. God's payment costs us nothing. We are just required to believe Him. Start with the Gospel of John.

Jim in Maine

Larry Hatfield

11-11-2005, 08:34 AM

i,m amused at the sort of pompous reference to people that do not have access to written material as "heathens".
that implys that all people other than believers in judaism, christianity, or islam
are irreligious and uncivilized.
religious zealots of all faiths have used this as a tool to slaughter tens of thousands of people in "gods name".
books are written by people. interpretations of archaic languages written on fragile material are still being argued today.
"original" versions of the bible have been altered many times by people with intent that was not always without religious and political bias.
there are many differing christian, judaism, and islam beliefs depending on the sect or order of the faith a group belongs to.
perhaps only one of these many interpretations is the "right one" or perhaps all of them are.
it may be wise of all who proudly acclaim to be "on gods side!"to hope that, in fact, god is on HIS side.

Esquire

11-11-2005, 08:44 AM

"It may be wise of all who proudly acclaim to be "on gods side!"to hope that, in fact, god is on HIS side."

well said.

asharrow

11-11-2005, 04:04 PM

The thing that is astounding me here is that this forum is labled "Christian Fellowship." What are the rest of you doing here? It is clearly not for fellowship.

Ray Cover

11-13-2005, 04:26 PM

I am back. Sorry it has take so long things have been busy. I will try to give my understanding of all this. I have not read in depth everything that has been posted so far but have quickly read over it so if I do anything redundant please forgive me.

How does God deal with those who have not heard the gospel?

First lets start with the premise that God is just. There are plenty of scripture references that tell us God is just so I will take that at face value.

Fair? Lets throw that one out the window. I want a God that’s just not fair. First off God is under no obligation to be fair. Secondly, fair means that rather than giving each individual what is best for him or her. He gives everyone the same thing. Instead of getting what you need you get what the others got whether you need it or not. I hope God is not fair.... But I am sure He is just.

Romans has already been quoted telling us that we all are sinners and fall short of God's mark. NONE of us live up to his standard of Holiness we all sin against him and deserve the wages of sin. According to scripture, that not only means physical death (separation of our soul form our body) but also spiritual death (separation of our soul from God). Scripture even bears out that we are sinful from the time we are in our mother's womb. This being the case God could condemn everyone of us to hell for eternity and be fully just in doing so.

Punishing the guilty for the wrong they did is NOT unjust no matter how you cut it. If a person is guilty of the crime and is judged and found guilty of that sin a JUST judge can convict the criminal and serve him the sentence for his crimes. Nothing unjust about that.

Now lets consider Gods Mercy. Again, God is under no obligation to be merciful to everyone no more than the president or governor is obligated to pardon every criminal although they have it within their power to pardon all and occasionally do pardon some. God is free to show His mercy to whom ever it pleases Him to show mercy to.

God offers Mercy (salvation from our sentence due our sin) freely to any who ask for it. He has made a way through Christ death and resurrection by paying for our debt out of His own pocket. That being said, Folks in the Old Testament were saved by that same death and resurrection. In John Chapt.8 Jesus says that Abraham looked forward to HIS day and rejoiced in it. Meaning that Abraham looked forward to the coming of the savior and that belief according to scripture (Rom chapt. 4 I think) this belief on Abraham's part was credited to him as righteousness. Even though Abraham did not know the full gospel story that would play out in the future he still trusted the knowledge of God he had and the savoir to come and he was still saved by that faith.

So what about those who have never heard the Gospel? Romans 2:11-16 tells us that those who have never heard the law of God will be judged by the law written on their own heart or their own conscience. If the person has violated his own conscience as to right and wrong he is guilty the same as those who were given the formal law of God are guilty when they break it.

Romans 1:18-21 tells us that we all have before us evidence of God both in creation and written on our hearts. The logic being that when we look at creation we are obligated to seek out the creator. Furthermore God has put in each of us a conscience and the existence of this conscience is enough to obligate us to seek out truth.

Jesus in Matthew 7:7-8 tells us that all those who honestly seek out after God will find Him. This is evidenced in Acts 8:26-39 where God sent Phillip to the Ethiopian Eunuch. I have also heard stories recently about people in areas where Christianity has not been taught or has been squelched by military force coming to a knowledge of Christ through dreams.

Based on this information I believe what it boils down to is that anyone who seeks after God will find Him even if God has to go to miraculous means to make it happen. If the pagan seeks after God he will find God although he may not have a perfect knowledge of all the finer doctrinal points of salvation. God will justly judge him on what knowledge he does have. Like Abraham may not have exactly know the finer points of future events the pagan may not have a perfect knowledge of salvation doctrine but if He seeks out and trust the creator God, Jesus tells us he will find God even if surrounded by other pagan religious ideas.

I also must restate that even if God did not go to this extent He is still just for condemning the guilty if He chooses to do so.

An important issue that needs appointing out is this. All of us on here have heard of Jesus and God the Father. Even if God decides to show mercy and pardon the pagan due to his lack of knowledge we have no such luxury. Our knowledge of God the knowledge that an offer of salvation exist obligates us to give an honest search into this. We all are truly without excuse because we are privy to this information.

I also want to point out that the fact that pagans exist that are outside of the knowledge of Christ and His Offer of salvation is not God’s fault but man’s. God gave the Jewish nation His word and covenant in order that they would share it with the other nations and make all peoples aware of God. The Christian church is also commanded to take the Good news of salvation to all the nations. Throughout history the Jews and we Christians have failed on many fronts in this effort. If we had all been more obedient and faithful to the task God set before us there would be a whole lot fewer of these pagan groups that have never heard the gospel.

Ray

Ray Cover

11-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Larry,

You are totally correct in that it is wrong for any group to look at other cultures who do not have a shared beleif as less human or inferior.

That being the case I do not beleive it is wrong to tell those people about what you beleive. Actually, if you truly beleive they will parish without the knowledge I would say you are obligated to tell them.

Not to change their culture or turn them into American Evangelicals in order to make them just like us, but to offer them a chance at eternal salvation.

Please dont' think that our intent is one of bigotry or snobery for doing so. While there are enough folks out there that support that steriotype, we do not all deserve the label.

Ray

greenghost

11-14-2005, 08:55 AM

"Even if God decides to show mercy and pardon the pagan due to his lack of knowledge we have no such luxury. Our knowledge of God the knowledge that an offer of salvation exist obligates us to give an honest search into this. We all are truly without excuse because we are privy to this information."

I have a question or two: How do you know that God will not be displeased with (and, consequently punish) those who accept His existence or the truth of the Bible on faith? Conversely, how do you know that God will not reward those who cast a skeptical eye on otherwordly explanations of moral behavior?

Notice that the questions are phrased so as to rule out explicitly the possibility of appealing to sacred texts as a legitimate, non-circular answer.

Swanny

11-14-2005, 09:18 AM

"Notice that the questions are phrased so as to rule out explicitly the possibility of appealing to sacred texts as a legitimate, non-circular answer."

Hi Marc, I personally don't agree with the presupposition that circular arguments are flawed (if that's what you are indeed inferring by the above statement). Which is why I brought you back around to the issue of the Scriptures in my last post.

this is my edit of my own post after reading your last statement for the umpteenth time....

perhaps you aren't suggesting circular arguments are flawed, but I'm still confused, if so. Could you expound on that last statement for me, please?

Ray Cover

11-14-2005, 10:36 AM

I need clarification too Marc. I'm not sure what your asking?

Ray

greenghost

11-14-2005, 11:02 AM

Swanny, it depends on what you mean by "flawed". Clearly, the following argument form will never lead you astray (i.e., will never lead you from truth to error):

1. p
--
2. Therefore, p

If the premise of this argument is true, then obviously the conclusion must be true. In logical jargon, the argument is deductively valid. So circular arguments aren't necessarily logically flawed.

But if by "flawed" we are not asking after logical cogency, but evidential support, then circular arguments are inherently flawed. If I say that I believe p only because of q and then say that I believe q only because of p, I clearly have not given any support whatever for p. I can make the circular bigger, but not better.

I believe that what you want to say (or, if I can be so presumptious, what I would advise you to say) is not that circularity is ok from an evidential point of view, but that certain beliefs are basic or evidentially foundational. Almost everyone believes this because the alternatives are either circularity or an infinite regress of justifications (actually, circularity can be understood as a special sort of infinite regress).

Now I happen to think that this is a very reasonable thing to say in order to justify one's belief in God. In fact, I think that most people who profess to believe in God "on faith" really believe that their belief is what philosophers call a non-inferentially justified belief: it is justified, but not justified by being inferred from some other belief. And again, on pain of an infinite regress, there have to be some beliefs like this. Most people think that basic observational claims (when stated very carefully) and logical/mathematical principles are of this sort. I happen to believe that other claims are also of this sort (e.g., that murder is morally wrong).

So this sort of move is unquestionably open and worth considering. But even granting it for a belief in God, it strikes me as highly non-obvious that biblical literalism is true. So if someone were to try to convince me that they believe that the Bible is the literal word of God w/out error and that this is a non-inferentially justified belief, I would be extremely skeptical. [I grant that such an individual might have insights that I lack, but I would be very, very suspicious of this.] Consequently, I believe that biblical literalism (if it can be supported) must be based on a prior (albeit limited) understanding of God's nature. And as a result, I believe that literalism not defended in this way really is faith-based.

I have two reasons for raising the issue again in light of Ray C's posts. First, individuals who adopt a certain religious stance often act as if their view poses no potential risk to their salvation. But this is a mistake. Assuming that God rewards faith over critical skepticism is as much a metaphysical assumption about God's nature as assuming that He rewards critical skepticism over faith!

The second, and related, reason is that it makes a big difference whether or not a belief is noninferentially justified or merely faith-based. In particular, I guess I DO believe that there CAN BE a certain sort of arrogance associated with evangelizing (depending on the "heavy-handedness" of the evangelizing) if one's views are merely faith-based and not justified. [I want to acknowledge what I take to be Ray C's point that not all evangelicals are heavy-handed.] Recognizing that one's views are not justified places heavy constraints on how much you should be willing to try to persuade others of your views, [I]even if you think the stakes are very high for them. This goes back to the preceding point: the views of the biblical literalist rest as much on basic (and often unjustified) assumptions about the way things really are as anyone else's.

Hope that helps clarify to some extent.

Cato

11-14-2005, 11:37 AM

GG,

If you are really interested in digging into this, and it appears you are, you should consider reading the book by C S Lewis called "Mere Christianity". It is a book that defends the Christian faith without using the Bible as the logic that leads you there.

If you will read it, I'll send you a copy gratus. Just email me at mblount1@jam.rr.com

Cato

Ray Cover

11-14-2005, 11:53 AM

OH, now I get it.

Marc, I would agree with you very much on the "heavy handed" issue. Based on my understanding of scripture I beleive it is our duty as Christians to tell everyone we can about God, Jesus and the salvation offered. Furthermore, I would say we have a duty to be able to explain to others why we beleive what we do. But it is not our job to do the convincing or the saving. That is God's job.

To use an old analogy, it is our job to plant the seeds but God is the one who makes it grow and realizes the harvest.

A faith gained in that way is real. One gained by oppresive force from another is survival not faith.

But that does not mean that we should not partake in discussion like this in which we bat ideas and concepts back and forth and all of us grow from that.
For one reason I think we should be able to give a reason for what we beleive and for another I do give an amount of credt to the old addage, " the unexamined life is not worth living". You make me take a renewed look at what I beleive and I think that is very healthy.

Ray

Larry Hatfield

11-16-2005, 11:39 AM

the spanish inquisition was an example of the methods used throughout history to bring the "message" to the heathens and savages.
that horror has changed countries and faces and methods but still exists in differing forms today, both in christianity and other religious beliefs.
the forced revision of anyones faith based on threat of death is not a religious act.
since primitive people tend to take oral messages very literally, the exhortation given them by some missionarys that they must be "saved" by a person that they had not seen or heard of or die and be punished for all time would both frighten and anger these people. there are lots of examples of slaughter of missionarys and also mass conversion that speak to these truths.
since most christians profess to not know gods will, how can anyone be sure that changing the way a person worships god does not condemn both to be denied entry to heaven?
perhaps the fact that a primitive person has a strong belief in a creator is proof in itrself of gods all powerful message and conversion merely pollutes a true belief.
my father carried the scars on his back, arms, and hands that reminded him of his first teachings of the bible.
since he went on to obtain a full education including a college degree or two, he understood what prompted the beatings but never forgave the system that designed them as a teaching "tool".
when i think how some of those wounds made his life very difficult in his last years i have to remind myself of the understanding he had for why they beat him.

Ray Cover

11-16-2005, 02:43 PM

Hank, Of course I would not push someone down a flight of stairs. I just thought it was funny when I saw it too. Mty sense of humor is sometimes twisted. But I mean well :)

Ray

Ray Cover

11-16-2005, 03:15 PM

Larry I agree.

There have been many misguided attempts to spread or preserve Christianity. I can think of many examples; Constantine's initiation of the Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish inquisition, Salem witch trials, etc, etc.

Your right those were not examples of Christ likeness (for lack of a better term) and I do not beleive that God condoned or blessed such actions. I do not know exactly what happened to your dad but i gather enough from context that someone thought they could beat the devil out of him litterally. That is horrible and is not behavior that is acceptable according to scripture. Those are not methods or examples we are given in scripture for how the gospel is to be spread.

But please don't paint us all with that brush or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Many good things can be spoiled, twisted, or misused by people with poor understanding, misguided motives, or with a personal ax to grind. Many bad things have been done in the name of democracy, capitalism, civil rights, etc, etc. But that does not make those bad things.

Just because misguided people have done things that were not Christian in the name of Christ does not make Christianity bad. It just makes those people bad. The people behind those horrible events were wrong but that doesn't make the teachings of Christ wrong. They were not following the teachings of Christ.

Ray