The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Maybe it would be easier if English words were spelt as pronounced.The classic is Rough, cough, through, bough, boroughwould make more sense if spelt: ruf, cof, thru, bow, boro.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

No, I'm not at all saying that.That all people believe God on this, that and the other matter doesn't mean they all believe God on all matters. And when it comes to salvation, there is a specific matter that must be believed - conviction in this matter forming, in my opinion, the fulcrum point of transfer from postion:lost to position:found.That belief comes packaged in as many ways as there are individuals but the contents of the packet are the same: involving the collapse of a persons reliance on self and the surrender of their rebellion against God. That a person might not believe in God at the time of their believing God in this matter isn't a problem. I mean, if their rebellion against God can be waged without belief in God then so can their surrendering.- At the time of committing the offence, God is disbelieved. The person believes, at the time of sticking a knife into another heart that this is a good thing to do and that their desire to stick a knife in is worth being served - over an above the needs of the person to remain in possession of an unpunctured heart.That a person 'comes to their senses' again afterwards doesn't alter the suppression of knowledge of good and evil that occurred for the duration involved in the planning and execution of the wrongdoing. Besides, they very frequently don't come to their senses again afterward, maintaining as they often do, a disbelief that wrong was done. Even to their dying day.I'm really not sure how someone could commit a wrong whilst maintaining (in prime position) a knowledge what they were about to do / were doing was wrong.- I gsther that all that is evil is recycled in the sense that it is used to build the environment of Hell. In this life we have the possibility of suppressing the truth about our evil. We can self-justify and forget - which takes the sting out of the guilt and shame attaching to our evil. In hell I'd suppose a persons evildoing to be recycled in the sense of being replayed for what it is - but without the comforting element of suppression. And so a person gets to see themmselves in diabolical technicolor and be fully revulsed by what it is they are and were.- Granted. But these same people also want; their own needs met over others, stoke jealousy over others position/wealth/looks/possessions, gossip, slander, hatred, anger. What is being sifted out in this life is whether or not you can be brought to yearn to be dispossessed of these ugly things. Because the only thing that will prevent you being brought to that yearning (by God) is your own unrelinquished desire to hang onto them.The simplicity of the mechanism of salvation is astonishing when stripped down to its basics. All God attempts to do is to hold up a mirror so we can see how ugly we are in our sin. All he attempts to do is reveal to us the truth about ourselves as we actually are. But he doesn't insist that this occur or force it to occur - he permits our refusal to accept this truth. And we all do struggle to evade the truth. The question is will we struggle to the bitter end - to the point where God accepts that our No! means No!. Because if we maintain our suppression, if we persistantly deny the ugliness that sits at the root our wrong motivations, if we attempt to deflect attention from our ugly side by pointing to our good works (as if adding fresh tomatoes to a soup stock based on sewer water rendered an edible soup) then we shall be lost. The only thing that can cause your being lost a willful refusal to accept the truth.

quote:

---

2 Thess 2:10 They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

---

- 1) We will have seen that there is no requirement to believe in Gods existance in order to pass from position:lost to position:found. That a person will have God revealed to them after they are found means we can say the person who saved must believe in God - but their belief is a marker of them having been saved, not a cause of their being saved.The cause of their being saved is their believing God. Not believing in God.2) We will have seen that Hell involves God withdrawing completely from the person who refuses to give up their love of 'evil' - having been given the opportunity to give it up that love. Being brought to a state of revulsion at self-evil is how a loss of love of evil is made manifest in practice.God is 'good' and cannot abide with 'evil' so it's fair enough that he leave people who want 'evil' to that end. That people also like 'good' is neither here nor there - there is no fence to be sat on in eternity. It's either or.[siae=1]*I've bracketed 'good' and 'evil' in parenthesis with the intention of sidestepping moral discussion. 'good' in this context stands for that which aligns with Gods will. 'evil' is that which doesn't. No moral commentary is being made.[/size]3) Whilst God has the power to force a person to see themselves as they are in the mirror, he cannot ensure that whilst at the same time permitting that a person refuse to see. And permitting a person to refuse to see respects personhood. To cross that boundary and override a persons will is to destroy the personhood - the definition of personhood centring around the will. Hell is the place where a person won't evade seeing themselves in the mirror. Hell involves the destruction of personhood in that sense - they are placed in captivity in that sense - their will locked up.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

first let me apologize to IANO and Jaywill here, two masterful expositors, artisans of no little character and talent. Especially that last post by jaywill, that is a piece of art. if you pay no attention to my intimations please read thiers carfully and try an comprehend what is being communicated by themTo Onfrie. every position or belief assumes its premises, depending on the amount of information that can be brought to bare on its conclusions. the existence of of God certainly falls within this category., ie if God exists then it would follow that nothing could exist outsideof him, otherwise he could not truely be called God. the existence of God is not a logical contradiction and is therefore a logical demonstratable proposition. In other words nothing prevents it form being resonable or LOGICAL. Enough said I hope, this really to simple to miss.This thread I believe was assuming his existence, because it refernced his character in the expressions of heaven and hell, which assumes his existence too Only because your not paying attention. if you dont like the expression "outside of existence", then I will limit it to nonexistent. A quality with no real susbstnace could be considered outside existence itself, hardly nonsense Probably not, but, since I never said this, it is not applicable here. Cause and effect have nothing to do with its properties or lack of property No, your describing its effect to physical properties. there is no such thing as a SUBSTANCE of a thought it has none in the first place, it only has affect twords physical actions Why, they are not the same as thoughts It does not matter what produces a thought, the thought still has no substance in reality. besides this if someone points a gun at me I employ the two oldest forms of marshal arts, I scream like a girl and run as quickly as possible. Laugh but it works. while the assalant is recoiling in disgust from your scream, it gives you that split second to make your escape. like the smoke from an octopus I didnt say the mind was independent, I said thoughts were, they are two different things neither is correct. God is existence and thoughts, not the mind, are independent of him because they have no reality . yes he created the mechanism of thought process, but freewill of the individual produces the thought, which then becomes independent of the mind the mind yes, thoughts, no True, but God can comprehend and HEAR your thoughts, the same as you can in your own mind. the mechanism that he created to produce thoughts is not hidden to him. thus the scripture that says, "and Jesus percieving thier thoughts", because he is and was God. this was not possible for anyother than God.Lets take it a step further, jesus did not need in that instance need to evaluate or comprehend anything, it was known to him from eternity. god does not comprehend or evaluate points of knowledge, they are apart of him from eternity. If there were ten billion UNIVERSES, every particle of knowledge has always been known to him No and i challenge you to demonstrate otherwise they exist in reality because you see thier effects, they still have no substnace.
He can be in charge and choose to not to control a thought or ones thoughts and remain independent of the conclusions of that thought. His control is manifested in the responsiblity he applies to the thoughts you wish to concieve. he only asks that you contemplate (think) correctly, as relates to his absolute principles. Thoughts dont "GO" OR "REAPPEAR" anywhere, they have no substnace in the first place. they only have reality because your mind can produce this amazing creation, which manifests itself in CONTEMPLATION or actions. God holds us accountable for thoughts, because he has endowed us by being created in his image, THINKING
It makes perfect sense Your making stuff up, I never said he did any of this, as a matter of fact, I said just the opposite he did in Christ Jesus, but you are disregarding that as well.. Whos is it that is coping out? Its neither as you have described it, youve misrepresented it again.EAM

first let me apologize to IANO and Jaywill here, two masterful expositors, artisans of no little character and talent. Especially that last post by jaywill, that is a piece of art. if you pay no attention to my intimations please read thiers carfully and try an comprehend what is being communicated by them. I hope this detour has not taken the discussion to far off track. My purpose is to emphasis the weight and responsibility involved in free moral choice in connection with the doctrines of heaven and hell.To Onifre. every position or belief assumes its premises, depending on the amount of information that can be brought to bare on its conclusions. the existence of of God certainly falls within this category., ie if God exists then it would follow that nothing could exist outsideof him, otherwise he could not truely be called God. the existence of God is not a logical contradiction and is therefore a logical demonstratable proposition. In other words nothing prevents it form being resonable or LOGICAL. Enough said I hope, this really to simple to miss.This thread I believe was assuming his existence, because it refernced his character in the expressions of heaven and hell, which assumes his existence too, from a common source, namely the Old and New testaments Only because, your not paying attention. if you dont like the expression "outside of existence", then I will limit it to nonexistent. A quality with no real susbstnace could be considered outside existence itself, hardly nonsense Probably not, but, since I never said this, it is not applicable here. Cause and effect have nothing to do with its properties or lack of property No, your describing its effect to physical properties. there is no such thing as a SUBSTANCE of a thought it has none in the first place, it only has affect twords physical actions Why, they are not the same as thoughts It does not matter what produces a thought, the thought still has no substance in reality. besides this if someone points a gun at me I employ the two oldest forms of marshal arts, I scream like a girl and run as quickly as possible. Laugh but it works. while the assalant is recoiling in disgust from your scream, it gives you that split second to make your escape. like the smoke from an octopus I didnt say the mind was independent, I said thoughts were, they are two different things neither is correct. God is existence and thoughts, not the mind, are independent of him because they have no reality . yes he created the mechanism of thought process, but freewill of the individual produces the thought, which then becomes independent of the mind the mind yes, thoughts, no True, but God can comprehend and HEAR your thoughts, the same as you can in your own mind. the mechanism that he created to produce thoughts is not hidden to him. thus the scripture that says, "and Jesus percieving thier thoughts", because he is and was God. this was not possible for anyother than God.Lets take it a step further, jesus did not need in that instance need to evaluate or comprehend anything, it was known to him from eternity. god does not comprehend or evaluate points of knowledge, they are apart of him from eternity. If there were ten billion UNIVERSES, every particle of knowledge has always been known to him No and i challenge you to demonstrate otherwise they exist in reality because you see thier effects, they still have no substance.
He can be in charge and choose to not to control a thought or ones thoughts and remain independent of the conclusions of that thought. His control is manifested in the responsiblity he applies to the thoughts you wish to concieve. he only asks that you contemplate (think) correctly, as relates to his absolute principles. Thoughts dont "GO" OR "REAPPEAR" anywhere, they have no substnace in the first place. they only have reality because your mind can produce this amazing creation, which manifests itself in CONTEMPLATION or actions. God holds us accountable for thoughts, because he has endowed us by being created in his image, namely THINKING.
It makes perfect sense. Your making stuff up, I never said he did any of this, as a matter of fact, I said just the opposite he did in Christ Jesus, but you are disregarding that as well.. Whos is it that is coping out? Its neither as you have described it, youve misrepresented it again.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I don't understand. How can you surrender to something you don't have any reason to believe exists. You seem back to saying you need to believe in god to go to heaven. I don't just rely on myself, I rely on my friends and family, and even my government and community, however, I'm going to place reliance on something I have no reason to believe exists. I'm not in rebellion, I'm not in denial, I'm in an evidentiary void, and thus do not have belief of reliance. Not always. I've known quite a few people who broke the law and did so knowing they were doing something wrong. I've seen it, I've even done it. I dom soemthing I know is wrong, but I do it because I want to do it...or even because I want to do something wrong. Most people go through a rebellious period in their teenage years and will often do things for the exact reason that they know they're doing wrong. Most of the time, in my experience, people wise up as they grow up and realize that doing something because it's wrong is not the best way to live. And as you said, everyone does these things to some extent. It's thinking like this that makes me so sad for my Christian friends. This sense of overriding guilt and self-loathing that seems to permeate most fundamentalist hearts is just so tragic. DO people do bad things? Yes. Does this taint them and make any future actions suspect and less worthy? Not in the least. What people should do is understand that everyone screws up at times, but if we can learn from those mistakes and do more good than harm, then we've lived a good life and should be commended. You're of the opinion that nothing can ever overcome even one bad action unless we give up and hope some invisible, unevidenced being will forgive us. You need to learn to forgive yourself, and if possible, seek forgiveness from those you have wronged, and stop hoping someone else will take care of your guilt for you. Again, you're stating, in a roundabout way, that anyone who doesn't believe in god is going to hell. I just can't see how someone who doesn't already believe in god can reach the position:found status, if to reach it, you have to submit to god. It's circular and illogical. Not hating yourself doesn't mean you love evil. I hat eevil, and recognize that on occassion I have done things I don't like. I have learned form those actions and have moved on as a stronger person, more willing to forgive others who have committed the same mistake as myself. If I fell into self-loathing to the point that only some supernatural being could save me, then I'd be lost for good.Again, I don't know anyone who loves evil. Some people are more susceptible to doing evil things, but again, I think this is more a product of brain chemistry and perhaps even mental problems than an actual choice in the matter. Show me someone who "wants evil" and you may have a point. The only people I can think of who would fall into that category are the very people who are least able to make the decision for themselves: the mentally ill. And doing this for eternity seems to be the worst thing a "loving" god could do. What a person who loves someone does who is engaging in bad behavior is force them to see it. That's why we have interventions and councelling. Turning your back and saying, "Oh well, if that's what he wants..." is the worst form of loving, it's a surrender and makes that person at least partially culpable for any further actions by the "evil" individual. It's a tacit approval of their actions, or a lazy indifference. It, itself, is an evil action.

I'm stuck for time so won't answer all your post Perdition.. You don't understand? Snap!! I don't understand either. Did you read this sentence in my last post to you?

quote:

---

I mean, if their rebellion against God can be waged without belief in God then so can their surrendering.

---

-Suppose for a moment:a) you know that murder is wrong. You know it and no one could convince you otherwise.b) You don't believe God exists.c) God exists and is the actual source of your knowledge 'murder is wrong'd) You (God forbid) find your wife in bed with another man and, living in...WeCanSin..you take your legally held revolver and shoot him between the eyes.e) At some point in your serving time you manage to set aside your anger at having been cheated on and accept that you were wrong in shooting that dirty dawg between the eyes.You have, at the point of shooting that man, rebelled against God - even though you don't believe God exists. Why do you have any problem with the notion of being able to surrender your rebellion against God, whilst in similar not-believing-in-God state?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Assuming he exists, his Spirit make-up, whatever that maybe, eternal in character This is ofcurse the unique nature of pure thought, love, hate, anger. All of these proceed from a thoughprocess, yet have nearly no reality, that is no substance. Think about it (no pun intended), you areformulating ideas in your head as we speak, but the thoughts have no real existence as we knowexistence, a truely amazing process. thought nearly has the property of bring and not being at the sametime Undul;y influences are irrelevant to the fact that every choice is made on some evidence outside of onesperson or character. This idea that pressure makes a choice not a choice is nonsense at best. a personhas as much choice not to exercise a choice at to exercise it, this latest attempt to make undulyinfluences as an excuse to excuse the ide of choice are simply silly. Yes, and according to God yes Think about it. You cant create the way God can. he can create a mechanism from his essence that hasthe ability to think and make decision that while the mechanism is a part of his essence, the thought itproduces is not, even though he can KNOW it, resond to it and reward or punish it. it is reinforced andsustanined by freewill Actually most christians would not agree with this idea. While everything is gods essence, not everythingis created in Gods exact image. Physical properties and animals are created by Gods power, thus byGods essence, but there is a sense in which man or humans are created in his image specifically, spirit,mind and thought Capable of doing evil and actually doing it are two different things,correct? As unpleasent as it may seemto you an eternal, ominiscient, being would not be able to use anything besides himself as a standard andwhy would he need to, there is nothing more than eternity an complete existence in ones self.You asked for a logical explanation of such matters, probably from a biblical perspective. It is straightforward and inexcapable as an explanation, unless you percieve the universe by itself as all there is, thennothing in the scriptures matters anyway, correct? I dont pretend to know all the eternal consequencesfor sin, only that as a logical proposition it is really inexcapable, if one accepts the existence of God Observable, testable, experimental, containg substance. Yes exacally, and you can hear its abstract property in your own mind, which makes it both real andunreal at the same time. It is the only thing in existence with this nature Why would you need anything apart from absolute existence and absolute morality. You expressionsseem to indicate you would be looking for something else, what and why would you need anything else?
What else is there besides eternality. It seems there is no way to avoid this conclusionwhat do you use as a measuring rod as to what constitues an 'ATTROCITE? Some positions can be carried no further than thier logical conclusions. Your questions concerning gods judgements and punishments, if concieved from the scriptures and put in logical fashion will involve a type of logical absolutness, so to speak. there is nothing you can offer to set aside these conclusionsEAMEdited by AdminModulous, : Fixed quote tags

Because this assumes that I somehow know what God deems to be right or wrong. Whether I actually believe in him or not.But how do I know that God doesn't consider my actions wholly justified? How do I know what God thinks?

Is this what you mean by surrendering? If so, then I would say most people feel regret for the bad things they've done. Again, that means we're almost all going to Heaven, Yay! Because, in my mind, you have to be aware you're in rebellion in order to surrender. It would be like some king showing up at my door saying, "You are asked to surrender your rebellion against the crown!"All I can do is say, "What rebellion? I wasn't even aware I was under a crown, let alone rebelling against it."I would then require proof of the king's claim, rather than just atking it on faith.So, how do I surrender to god if, not only am I unaware that I'm rebelling, I don't even think the thing to which I'm supposed to surrender even exists?

Yes, this thread does assume he exists. But in no way has this thread established his existence as being a logical conclusion. You said it was, and have not shown why.While I will admit that it is off-topic to the thread (and you may choose not to answer based on that), assuming that god exist is not a logical conclusion. By the very definition of the word *belief* one is accepting something is true purely on faith - to include faith in the scriptures that tell of his powers.But I've strayed from the topic enough. Before we go further, please explain what "outside existence" is.If you're saying that thoughts don't exist, then how can you have them?Also, are you disregarding the inner workings of your brain, more so of your neurons.In fact, lets get to the heart of your issue: What is a thought?And your explanation should be based on objective evidence, not just, "it's an abstract thing that takes place outside of existence."Here are some scientific answers to that question, if you like, you may choose from these, or come up with your own. Thought:
Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors.Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.Any of those sound about right to describe what a thought is? It does when I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a "thought". You have not been clear. You have been vague in your description.If it has a cause, then your sensory functions receive the information. If it has an effect, then your central nervous system processes the information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.Now, can you please tell where the actual thought happens outside of this system? So, spoken words have "substance" different from thoughts? Please explain. How so? This is nonsense.You have a cause which is sensed, you have an effect which is the result of your body processing information. That's it. That's all "thoughts" are.Thoughts are not independent of stimuli or of your environment.Here's a fun question: Can a person who was born completely blind think in the color red? Please explain. Thoughts are the by product of a being that interacts with reality. Thoughts are the beings reaction to reality. They are derived from the central nervous system that processes the information and tells the body how to act.Thoughts are NOT an abstract thing, they are reactions to stimuli.Please give me a clear definition of what a thought is, that is somehow different from what science explains it to be. Scientifically, thoughts are the reaction to stimuli.However, my only other point is this: Do humans have the "thoughts" in reality? I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd. If they exist in reality, and god is all of existence, then he is our thoughts too. You can't get around this obvious flaw.Unless you can give a clear definition of what "thoughts" are that somehow explains how they are derived at through some other mechanism. In Message 82 you write:

quote:

---

Only the mechanism and the creation of freewill can be said to be under Gods control

---

So, god created freewill and he chose to give it to mankind. In other words, god CONTROLS who receives "freewill".In Message 68 you wrote:

quote:

---

Thought are produced by a mechanism made by God

---

So, god created the mechanism that helps you evaluate and process information so you can come up with thoughts.My point (which you said I'm making stuff up) - god controls who gets freewill and was responsible for how thoughts are made.(1) If he chooses who gets freewill, then there is nothing free about it.(2) If he is responsible for the mechanism that makes thoughts, then he is responsible for the end product - (the thought). Wait, EMA, am I also supposed to assume the Jesus story is real too?How many premises do I have to just accept?This thread assumes GOD was real, I gave you that one, now Jesus too?Why couldn't god just fix the mechanism that makes thoughts? That's my question.- Oni

There's nothing to stop God ensuring you know - whether you actually believe in him or not. "Somehow" seems to indicate your belief that there might be some kind of difficulty in his doing so?Au Cointreau Rodney, au Cointreau..The suggestion, unprovable (and unnecessary to prove - for the purposes of your own salvation) as this may be, is that this is how it is. You actually know what God deems right and wrong.This quite remarkable situation (the God of the whole Universe deigns to communicate with you) is rendered abnormally normal by the simple fact that everyone ever born is in no different a position than you.A knowledge enabling the discernment of good from evil was given to man at the instant he fell from God - indeed, it was intrinsic in the very fruit he ate of..God: preparing the way for mans salvation at the very point of mans falling. It would make a grown man cry. Such love..- For the purposes of your arrival at your salvation (should it pan out so)? There is no need for you to consciously know what God thinks this side of your salvation. All that matters is that you know what God thinks. Which, he says, you do.I'm inclined to believe him - the evidence out there overwhelmingly indicates that the World .. knows...what he thinks.If it didn't, the World would be utter Hell,Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ok I will buy that for the sake of this argument. I think we are talking in circles here. If you are saying that thoughts are the direct product of the biochemical process of cognitive thinking in our brain than I agree with you. Without the physiological process of brain activity there are no thoughts. Therefore thoughts are an abstact concept resulting from a physical process which do not exist if you are referring to existence as occupying a niche of spacetime in which we live. In other words you do not see randomn ‘thoughts’ just floating around out there. Therefore using this definition of existence, no, individual thoughts do not exist however the brain exists.Anywho let’s get back to topic. How so? If a mentally ill or handicapped person is unduly influenced by other factors (psychological and/or physiological), do these influences not have a role into whether someone really has free reign over their own emotions, thoughts, and decisions? The answer of course is yes both physical and psychological factors have a role into whether someone truly has "free-will". Otherwise there would be even more mentally ill people in prison than there already are and their would be no mental wards in hospitals.The same is true with children. Depending on their age we do no judge children with the same criteria that we judge culpable adults. Children, especially little children, do not have the life-experience or mental capacity to have complete freedom to make correct or wise decisions. They are still learning how to make correct decisions to the extent that they become fully responsible adults.Even grown and cognizant adults, though they have the freedom and responsibility to make correct decisions, may experience time in their life where unduly influences may overwhelm their capacity to make rational choices. It is situational dependent on whether they are held culpable by other human beings for these decisions depending on internal and external influences. In fact this is exactly what a court of law is trying to determine (there guilt and the extent to which they had the ability to make rational decisions between morally acceptable and unacceptable behavior) besides the evidence for or against the case. For example, someone who goes out drinking and than in their drunken stouper decides to drive home in car is held culpable because they had the freedom to choose the morally acceptable decision of not driving, not driving, finding another ride, etc before they made the decision to take that first drink even though the alcohol now overwhelms there decision making process in their brain.However, if someone who is under excruciating physical and psychological anguish, pain, etc i.e. a POW, someone being tortured, etc to the point that there decision making process in their brain is unduly influenced or outright overridden than a court of law will take that into consideration when they determine whether someone violates the law.One cannot just say unduly influences are irrelevant to every situation because that is patently not true as shown in our own judicial system.I will have to answer the rest of your post later. Thanks again for the discussion.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Lets assume that God is good. God is love. God is justice. We will go with this word, Zog. God is Zog. (We don't yet know if God is also Anti-Zog or not) If the concept of anti-zog exists, it had to be either allowed (or created) by God or part of God. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

So are you essentially saying that for the purpose of argument I could surrender to God even if I did not believe that God existed?OK. Say that I surrendered and said that I would concede this particular argument fully to you, Ian. Now what?

I'm not saying it for the purpose of argument. I'm saying that's how it is. It is, for example, the way in which God can want none to perish before Jesus was even born, or before Jesus could have been heard of by a sheep herder in Tibet.- Your saved. You are transferred from position lost to position found.If you happen to be exposed to the Bible you will now be able to 'get' its spiritual message. If you are exposed to teaching about Jesus you will recognise him as saviour. If neither of these things you'll still be saved but your understanding of God will be technically embryonic (I'd imagine: I've never met, understandibly, a believer whose never heard of Jesus)I'd be supposing such people to be the likes of those in Matthew 25. The sheep (not goats) who are surprised at their being saved.Edited by iano, : correct: matt 23 > 25