Incidentally, there's a story here that touches on this subject.
Incidentally, there's a story here that touches on this subject.
Bagman- You obviously cannot deal with the situation so you rely on fallacious reasoning and appeals to emotion to satisfy your unfeasible position. Jesus is not just a man, he is also God, he is the third part of the triune god-head, he has two natures: human and divine when he went to the cross he took all our sin, so that we can believe in him to be saved. Suffering is a by-product of sin, that is the nature of mankind.
Panglossian- Unfair? Sin is sin, it must be punished we were all dead, but through christ we are alive. It is not our fault that they refuse to accept Jesus Christ, if they don't than they will go to hell. God is an infinitely just God, sin is an act of rebellion and it must be punished. I don't think you have a standard by which you can judge God. I think all philosophy and theology need to be looked at more, end of discussion.
No it's not the end of the discussion. What about those millions of souls before Christ's earth visit? They couldn't refuse to accept Christ because they didn't know about Christ.Originally Posted by ChristopherAP
There is no difference. Today we believe in a Savior who has come. Before, they trusted the promise of a Savior who was to come. The book of Hebrews holds up the faith of these "Old Testament believers" as an example for those of us who now live after Christ completed his work.
By *they* you mean a very small percentage of the BC global population. Those who didn't or couldn't *know* were just left to go to hell (pardon the pun).
And, actually, it wouldn't matter if those who didn't or couldn't know were a tiny number. It wouldn't matter, in fact, if there were only a single individual. Because God, in order to be just, has to come up with a system of judgement that gives that one human being a fair shot at salvation, doesn't he?
Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost. We are horrified (and rightly so) when a pregnant mother does drugs since her child suffers from her actions. Ought we not be horrified when parents deprive their children of this vital information about God?
Furthermore, God has been active throughout history bringing his word to those who did not know it. Believers have always been expected to practice their faith and "give a reason for the hope they have" during the course of their daily life (What a tragedy when they don't!) God sent prophets and apostles to different nations directly in the Bible and sends them through the mission activity of his church for the last 2000 years. The very nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem in the Old Testament was (among other things) to serve as a light on a hill by drawing the other nations to itself and to the Lord (again, the shame when they fell short. cf. the Minor Prophets for God's rebuke in this regard).
Actually, salvation is not required at all by God's justice. If God were only fair, he would need to save anyone. Salvation belongs to his mercy and compassion. Shakespeare seems to have got this--Though justice be thy plea, consider this,That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation.
God's compassion worked out salvation in such a way that he remains just and merciful.
Ah, but who's fault is that. At 2 points in history (post-Garden of Eden & post-Flood) knowledge of and belief in God were universal. Humans are the fault this knowledge is lost.
So, hang on - I'm born in rural China, in 1000BC, a long way from the Holy Land, with no chance of Moses happening by carrying tales of burning bushes and promised lands of milk and honey, and with absolutely no concept of the Old Testament Jehovah, nor any notion of an expected Messiah. And that's just tough, because I'm descended from Adam - of whom I've also never heard - and am therefore damned, and if I can't figure that out for myself and do something about it, that's my fault. Or possibly the fault of my long-dead ancestors, who, frankly, should have stuck closer to Mount Ararat rather than going forth and multiplying all over the Far East. Or, as it may be, New Zealand. Or Scotland. Or what would eventually become Hayes, Kansas.
Incorrect....
According to Romans 2:14ff, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."
Those who did not have the Law of Moses, but still acted in a righteous manner, were a law unto themselves.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
What about those who never heard of Jesus, but otherwise lived sin free lives? Do they go to hell?
Who do you know that has lived a sin free life? There are those that do not know sin, I guess. If one is already free from sin, then they don't need saving from sin. It's really that simple.
Les Miserables,
Volume 1, Fifth Book, Chapter 3
Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
I am with you on this, BienvenuJDC, there must be a real rejection of God for a person to go to hell. I will be going to hell if there is a God. To commit a wrong is to sin against God; for this you must ask forgiveness. I never will, because pride is my greatest sin.
Last edited by G L Wilson; 07-19-2011 at 06:50 PM.
even in talking about bc times, this is dangerous.
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n"
GL, ever read Paradise Lost?
"The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav’n of Hell, a Hell of Heav’n"
Good - I'm glad it's incorrect. I'll pass that on to togre.
However, that's Paul speaking, whom you may think was talking on God's behalf, but whom I think was one of many Christian thinkers trying to formulate a rational interpretation of a rather inconsistent set of apparent injunctions.
If he's right, he's contradicting - or at least putting a pretty unexpected spin on - Jesus' statement that no one will enter the Kingdom of Heaven but through Himself.
But more importantly, from my point of view, he's giving a huge advantage to those who are 'a law unto themselves', who get into Heaven by essentially having been 'good people', without ever having committed to Christ. I mean - that's not fair. Under those circumstances, a lot of people would get in, had they not been labouring under the huge disadvantage of being born after 30BC and within the influence of the Christian church. That's a much easier route into Heaven.
Last edited by MarkBastable; 07-20-2011 at 01:15 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote