Theology question

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:04 am

I have a question for the religiously knowledgeable among you. I am not asking this to spark a debate. I am asking because I am ignorant of these matters and truly want to know.

My question is this: According to Christian principals, do people who live in isolated areas such as South American rain forests, or small isolated South Pacific tribes go to hell if they donâ??t accept Christ as their savior? If they donâ??t even know about Christ and therefore canâ??t accept him, are they punished by God?

This is just one aspect of theology that has always fascinated me. Please enlighten me.

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:03 pm

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:40 pm

It's pretty hard to get the "Christian" answer to this, because it's never explicitly addressed. There's a lot of disagreement over this particular point. Here's my own view:

To some people, Jesus' statement that "No one comes to the Father but by me" means that nobody who hasn't heard of Him can possibly be saved. But then, what of Abraham, or Moses? I don't think they knew who Jesus was, at least not by name, but Matthew 17:3 and Luke 13:28 give pretty explict statements that both of those guys are saved. Why? Well, perhaps, someone can come to the Father through Jesus without knowing exactly what they're doing -- just like someone can fall to earth due to gravity without knowing what it is. I know this is an incomplete analogy, but I think it sort of illustrates the point.

What of those in isolated countries who have never heard of Him? It seems to me it's quite possible (though highly improbable) that they would follow Him even without knowing His name or having a Bible or anything like that. There's an extended passage toward the end of C.S. Lewis' "The Last Battle" (the last book of the Chronicles of Narnia) where a soldier from a foreign country runs into Aslan (who represents Jesus) at the last judgement, and is afraid, because he's served Tash (a demon figure) all his life. I happened to find a copy of the passage online. This is from the soldier's point of view:

...I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted... Beloved, said the Glorious one, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

Now, CS Lewis tends to be a little more of an inclusivist than me -- but I think this illustrates how broadly salvation might apply.

So, why do we still try to reach these people if they can be saved without hearing the message? Well, first of all, to increase their chances, and second of all, because God is interested in more than just saving people -- He is interested in creating mature disciples. It's very hard to be a mature disciple of someone you don't know very well. As Paul asks in Romans 10, "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?" It is very difficult -- and it gets easier if they have heard.

I hope that helps. I'm sure there are other Christians here who would disagree, at least in part.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:51 am

One of the biggest ironies of my life was when i was rejecting my familys religion, causing a bit of an uproar, (Methodist-loads of salvation army stuff)i was devouring C. S. Lewis.

Then when i got older, i came to live by the shores of one of Jesus's haunts. Go figure.

FC

pipsqueak10 · Post by **pipsqueak10** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:14 am

But then, what of Abraham, or Moses? I don't think they knew who Jesus was, at least not by name, but Matthew 17:3 and Luke 13:28 give pretty explict statements that both of those guys are saved.

If I'm not mistaken, Moses and Abraham would not know of Christ since Jesus was born after Moses and Abraham were dead. As far as them being saved, I'm sure it is the case since God the Father spoke directly to Moses and chose him to lead the jews out of Egypt. I'm not quite sure if God spoke to Abraham. (Forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert although I have read most of the bible.)

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:13 pm

Edit: See Lothar's reply...

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:40 pm

Tyr, you can feel free to keep your anti-Christian attitude at bay if you want to participate in this thread, thanks. This is a thread on theology, not a debate (and it's certainly not a place for trolling.) I know it's hard to resist all the rolly-eyes and "insane" remarks, but you're old enough you should be able to respond in a mature way, and share the information you have without trying to be insulting.

Observe (notice the lack of rolly eyes and insults):

pipsqueak10, God spoke to Abraham a number of times. He told Abraham to leave his country (in Genesis 12), that he'd inherit the Jordan Valley (Gen 13), that he'd have a son (Gen 15), that He'd destroy Sodom (Gen 18), to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22), and so on.

Some would also argue Jesus spoke to Abraham in Genesis 14, because some think Melchizedek is Jesus (using Psalm 110, Heb 5-7, and John 8:48-59). I don't think that's correct, or at least not as well-established as some people say it is, but it's an interesting theory.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:57 pm

This is godd stuff Lothar. Thanks. When I am done with my masters program I want to take a few religion or theology classes for fun. It has alway fascenated me that three of the world's biggest religions all came from the same book yet see the world and thier place in it so differently.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:09 pm

the difference is that Abraham and Moses knew of the coming Messiah, where the New Testament is the story OF the Messiah
one being fore told of, the other having come, the Same Messiah

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 6:22 pm

My post wasn't meant to be anti-Christian and I apologize if it came out that way. The last thing I would want to do is start a flame war with you about religion.

Yes, I am old enough to know better but I don't need you to point that out to me nor do I need you to instruct me on forum etiquette either.

Now if you'll excuse me I think I'll take leave of this one...

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:04 pm

Well now here's a thought-- is it possible that Old Testament salvation is still applicable today?

Reflecting from what Cuda said too, Old Testament salvation was plainly faith in God's salvation, even though He had yet to be incarnate (prophecies could also help out here).

If this were true-- that such salvation was still applicable, I'd imagine though that if you knew of Christ (God's salvation), and rejected Him, you wouldn't be able to earnestly have the required faith in God's salvation.

Just my thoughts.

BTW, Melchizedek 0wnz all.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:14 am

I would say that yes, anyone who does not know Christ goes to Hell. I do believe that first God provides a way for people in even the most remote areas to know Him, and I also think that some people believe without ever knowing his name. As for people before Jesus' time- I'm not sure about that one.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:15 am

There are 2 categories of revelation: special and general. Examples of the former are the Bible and the Gospel. General revelation is available to everyone and means something like the 'testimony of nature' -
e.g., 'the heavens declare the glory of God.' Ps. 19:1
'Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.' Romans 1:20
'that they should seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though he is not far from each of us.' Acts 17:27.

The idea is that, even w/o special revelation, it's possible at least to move in the right direction based on general revelation. E.g., a person may embark on a train of thought: I am contingent, hence dependent, hence subordinate, hence obligated, etc. Also, I think it's possible to formulate a reasonably coherent and plausible theistic world view based on general revelation.

But compared with special revelation, there's a lot more room for interpretation when evaluating general revelation - so it's easier to resist its force.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 9:37 am

So, why do we still try to reach these people if they can be saved without hearing the message? Well, first of all, to increase their chances, and second of all, because God is interested in more than just saving people -- He is interested in creating mature disciples. Lothar

This is the part of christianity I don't like. The idea that it is their way or the highway. So what we are saying here is all those millions of souls who died before Christ was born are languishing in hell because the single god concept was not yet devised? That somehow all the Hindu's of the world are doomed because they somehow got it wrong? Does the bible explain neanderthal or cro magnon man as lost souls, forever damned because they could not even comprhend the single god concept? I think not.

Oh and Dedman, when you take those classes, try and study the other big religions "not of the book" also.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:56 pm

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20For 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

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
20For 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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have no excuse and yes they will be judged

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 3:20 pm

woodchip, like I said to Tyr, this isn't a debate thread. Keep your anti-Christian remarks out, please. If you have a legitimate theological point, please make it -- but if all you're going to do is comment about how you "don't like" Christianity, please do so elsewhere. The thread is meant to answer Dedman's theological question, and nothing more.

(Also, your response read as if you didn't comprehend what I said, and were just looking for something to argue. Please read more carefully next time, thanks.)

Top Wop · Post by **Top Wop** » Sun Dec 14, 2003 4:13 pm

Iâ??m going to expand my brief explanation just a little bit.

From what I know, God is merciful and understanding, and also when he needs to, can punish people for being evil. Even though outside the Church there is no salvation, it is for people who choose not to accept God after getting a revelation. Otherwise if people like the Indians live their lives without knowing the true Jesus Christ, they can still be saved and earn their place through Purgatory although people with evil intentions will still be punished. Thatâ??s how I understand it.

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:38 am

Well one has to actually believe in this theology to accept certain things about it, but to make it short, the people who never knew about "God" (be it the "Lord God" or "Jesus," it doesn't matter) and don't know, yes, they die. General Christianity tells you all "non-believing" people go to hell, which is a blanket doomsday statement, and one I hate hearing because it sounds doomsday-ish. The message of Christianity isn't meant to scare people or anything like that, and non-believers don't "go to hell" the way most people think. Hell is not some subterranean burning lake of fire that's going to torment souls to the end of time, it's a concept that refers to an eternal death. As in, when a non-believer dies, that person is basically dead, and has "gone to hell," because much of the original Greek and Hebrew referred literally to "death" or the "grave" as this "hell" (when translated to English).

Anyway, to respond to your main question, the Bible makes it clear that the message must be witnessed before everyone on this planet, through time. Although God holds responsible those who follow after pagan/heathen traditions that filtered through history (explaining for all those other civilizations and religions which ultimately started centuries ago in some form), today the message must reach everyone on the planet, because part of the basic principles of Christianity involves a personal decision, and unless one is given knowledge...where's the decision?

Revelation 1:3 - "Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near."

I know there are those that don't believe a single thing about Christianity, which is fine, you can all believe what you like, but it is your decision. Make fun of Christians all you want, that still doesn't change the fact this is all about faith and belief, us Christians just decide to believe what seems to be right as do the rest of you. Attacking someone's beliefs is just plain out of line, unless of course it's so obviously wrong.

No one can be saved by means other than comitting to the word of God/Jesus. I don't know where this whole "purgatory" thing came from, it's not Biblical.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:32 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
 woodchip, like I said to Tyr, this isn't a debate thread. Keep your anti-Christian remarks out, please. If you have a legitimate theological point, please make it -- but if all you're going to do is comment about how you "don't like" Christianity, please do so elsewhere. The thread is meant to answer Dedman's theological question, and nothing more.

(Also, your response read as if you didn't comprehend what I said, and were just looking for something to argue. Please read more carefully next time, thanks.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny I thought I was making a theological point and I dare-say it was legitimate. As to dislike I was only pointing a certain area of dislike and not a dislike of christianity in general.

As to your response, I did read it. Just remember though, being succinct is a virtue

Viralphrame · Post by **Viralphrame** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:24 am

Sorry to go off topic, but part of Asrale's post really got me thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Asrale:
The message of Christianity isn't meant to scare people or anything like that, and non-believers don't "go to hell" the way most people think. Hell is not some subterranean burning lake of fire that's going to torment souls to the end of time, it's a concept that refers to an eternal death. As in, when a non-believer dies, that person is basically dead, and has "gone to hell," because much of the original Greek and Hebrew referred literally to "death" or the "grave" as this "hell" (when translated to English).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Book of Revelation clearly states that there exists a lake of fire.

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." (20:14)

"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (20:15)

Revelation 19:20 also refers to a true lake of fire, "burning with brimstone."

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived him that received the mark of the beast and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone." (19:20)

Also, in 20:10:

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever."

Looking at all these references, from different points of view, I myself find no room for mis- or re-interpretation of what the Bible truly means when it refers to a lake of fire and brimstone.

(Note: All above passages are taken directly from the King James Version of the Bible.)

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:10 pm

woodchip, what you made wasn't a theological point, it was a philosophical point from a broader theological context that you were trying to wedge into the context of this thread. (How's that for succinct?)

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:45 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
woodchip, what you made wasn't a theological point, it was a philosophical point from a broader theological context that you were trying to wedge into the context of this thread. (How's that for succinct?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lothar, I think you're being too generous in calling it a philosophical point. I think it was a classic straw man argument being used as flame bait.

Asrale · Post by **Asrale** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:25 pm

Viralphrame, I'l try to make this as short as possible.

It's true that Revelation refers to a "lake of fire" and so forth multiple times. But you also need to know that most of Revelation is symbolic, and was given to the disciple John in vision.

People who don't study the Bible's larger context, hidden meanings, and the other books that relate directly to Relevation completely misunderstand the "lake of fire" it talks about. It's more symbolic than anything else, and not to be taken literally. There is no actual lake of fire burning with brimstone, it's just written like that because the end-time scenario is going to be very destructive and God will ultimately punish Satan.

Take the God of infinite love that the Bible talks about and you can't reconcile the lake of fire that way either. What kind of God would use a literal lake of fire to "torment" even Satan?

I should also probably add, when the Bible refers to fire burning "forever," it does not mean the fire itself goes on forever, simply because of the fact that's not how fire works. It burns something up and expires. People like to take that out of context as well. Consequences last forever, which is usually what the Bible talks about, like that torment thing.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:14 pm

Actually I've been partial to the non-fiery hell idea ever since Gay-votte (

) introduced it to me in the NHB.

In addition, even if the fire does burn forever, that's NOT to imply that what's thrown in the fire will not be consumed.

Woodchip-- The Bible is specific, that you aren't responsible for that which you have no capacity to do/to understand. Also, regardless of your cosmological viewpoint, it's safe to say that man was blameless before our fall-- that much you cannot deny if you believe the Bible.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:54 am

Thanks Jeff, the way you put it makes christianity a bit more palatable.

woodchip, what you made wasn't a theological point, it was a philosophical point from a broader theological context that you were trying to wedge into the context of this thread. (How's that for succinct?)Lothar

Lothar, there is a fine line between succinct and being snippy

Remember...theology is philosophy, the reverse is not always true.
Thus my broader philisophical point came from a narrower theological view would be a more proper reply.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff250:
 Actually I've been partial to the non-fiery hell idea ever since Gay-votte (

) introduced it to me in the NHB.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another reason to take the 'lake of fire' symbolically is that other forms of imagery are used. Jesus described the after-life as an 'outer darkness' where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It may also be worth pointing out that Jesus said that judgement would be based on a person's actions and words, not on their beliefs.

CS Lewis had an interesting take on hell. In the fictional work, The Great Divorce, he describes hell as a dreary city where people are left alone to 'stew in their own juices'. They are even permitted to visit heaven where they could remain if they wanted, but they don't because they won't give up their petty grievances, jealousies, etc.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Tue Dec 16, 2003 10:24 pm

Woodchip, remember too that man was also initially under the influence of divine revelation. According to Genesis, before our fall, we would even walk with God-- the point being that we had every chance to do that which was right, but we didn't

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:56 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lothar:
 So, why do we still try to reach these people if they can be saved without hearing the message? Well, first of all, to increase their chances, and second of all, because God is interested in more than just saving people -- He is interested in creating mature disciples. It's very hard to be a mature disciple of someone you don't know very well. As Paul asks in Romans 10, "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?" It is very difficult -- and it gets easier if they have heard.

I hope that helps. I'm sure there are other Christians here who would disagree, at least in part.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I do disagree, most (if not all) groups who have not heard of God worship man in general, a man, things, the devil, or his minions. From what I understand the recipient of worship is a god, (little "g") and God (big "G") hates that.

----

As for Old Testament salvation still being applicable, the idea is of a contract. The New Testament contract applies now, and the Old Testament contract applied then.

The Old contract covered the sins for a period, (a years worth of sin i think) under the New contract God agrees not to hold your sins against you, and it covers the future.

----

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Asrale:
I should also probably add, when the Bible refers to fire burning "forever," it does not mean the fire itself goes on forever, simply because of the fact that's not how fire works. It burns something up and expires.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just wondering, but couldn't an all powerful being of any sort create something that defied the "laws" of physics.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 3:46 pm

The Old contract covered the sins for a period, (a years worth of sin i think) under the New contract God agrees not to hold your sins against you, and it covers the future.

The only thing is that such constraints were never specified in the Old Testament such as "one year." Many Jews did yearly have a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to sacrifice an animal to atone for their sins, but I'd argue that that was more symbolic than necessary. I think the question becomes, what is it that's saving them? The sacrifice of an animal, or their faith in God's ultimate salvation? I'd argue the latter, since it's only God's ultimate sacrifice that could save them.

I do agree with you though. I really don't think that the old covenant is applicable today, but I thought it warranted some attention. The ripping of the curtain seperating the Holy of Holies from the temple at Christ's crucifixion and the temple's destruction decades later are two things that come to mind that would definitely seem to imply that. I think that God was trying to give a strong clue to the Jews.

Just wondering, but couldn't an all powerful being of any sort create something that defied the "laws" of physics.

Sure, but then why even use a fire in the first place? And why go through all that trouble? Yes, there's no "trouble" to God, but why make the "second death" (as it is sometimes referred to) worse than it would have to be? It's entirely possible that there's no fire at all, and that it is intended to be symbolic, but I'm not going to worry about it.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 4:21 pm

Thread Necromancy!

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:02 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff250:
Sure, but then why even use a fire in the first place? And why go through all that trouble? Yes, there's no "trouble" to God, but why make the "second death" (as it is sometimes referred to) worse than it would have to be? It's entirely possible that there's no fire at all, and that it is intended to be symbolic, but I'm not going to worry about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We'll see when we die

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff250:
The only thing is that such constraints were never specified in the Old Testament such as "one year." Many Jews did yearly have a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to sacrifice an animal to atone for their sins, but I'd argue that that was more symbolic than necessary. I think the question becomes, what is it that's saving them? The sacrifice of an animal, or their faith in God's ultimate salvation? I'd argue the latter, since it's only God's ultimate sacrifice that could save them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the sacrifice was necessary, but only because God commanded it, however I do agree that faith is the real requirement.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:44 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by 1398342003:
We'll see when we die<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hopefully not!

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:09 pm

I think God is going easy on us. If you made a bunch of robots, and some never listened to you, you would re-program or destroy them correct?
God's giving us a chance to change, and a penalty if we don't. Just like traffic cops

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 11:28 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff250:
Hopefully not! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant observe from a healthy, safe distance.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 7:23 pm

[EDIT !]If I cross post, ... the teacher will send me to the principals office, I know I know, ... ... And so maybe I ought to start another thread all about it... [EDIT.!]

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:20 pm

Ok, I haven't read thru all the posts, but this has seemed like a good thread and realtively lacking of flame. Nice job all!

As I understand it the short answer is yes and no. Lothar, you quoted Jesus stating "No man comes to the Father except by me." I see this as by the work that He did on the cross. That is to say that by his sacrifice; dying on the cross as the Passover Lamb so that the world may have a way to be forgiven of sin, we are able to enter into relationship with God, the Father without the need of a priest. Without that "work" we would never have been truely "reconciled" to God for the sin of Adam.

Paul writes that no man has an excuse to recognize and worship God because he is revealed in nature itself. It's also written that the Law of God will be written on the hearts of man. God is faithful to "show" himself to everyone, whether in a huge city or in the remotest part of the world. He isn't wanting to give us an ultimatum, but wants us to get to know Him. Just like we love our kids and want them to know us and understand our love for them.

The isolated person does not NEED to know of the person Jesus to receive salvatiuon. He does, however, need to acknowledge God. ... and no .. not just any god. Remember also that God; or G-d for you jewish readers, is sovreign and that it is soley His decision in a matter like this. A good question.

There is a book on this very thing called: "Eternity in Their Hearts" by Don Richardson. You can see it HERE

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:39 pm

That's a fairly good summary, Duper.

El Ka Bong, cross posting is looked down upon here. So is general incoherence.

Darkside Heartless · Post by **Darkside Heartless** » Thu Jan 15, 2004 8:47 pm

Super, Duper

err, you get the idea

1398342003 · Post by **1398342003** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:21 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by the Global Ideas Bank:
Editorial comment: We hold no brief for marijuana - indeed there are credible research reports which state, for instance, that it can trigger schizophrenia in susceptible individuals. But the following article is an interesting restatement of the claim that Christianity has emerged from an ancient mushroom cult. Christianity is a mature enough religion not to take offence at this exuberant anthropological excursion into its possible prehistory.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I happen to take offence to the statement that the real basis of my religion is a mushroom cult, and my Savior is a myth.

Very good summary Duper.

De Rigueur · Post by **De Rigueur** » Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:55 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by 1398342003:
 I happen to take offence to the statement that the real basis of my religion is a mushroom cult, and my Savior is a myth.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try to get used to that kind of criticism -- it's not going away.

We live in a pluralistic culture where people embrace radically different world views. In order to have a coherent world view, you must be able to explain why it is that others don't share your beliefs -- in other words, why they just don't get it. These explanations will often portay them in a less than flattering light. Also, world views are in competition so it's to be expected that followers of one will try to discredit the beliefs of another.