Innocents in Hell, Guilty in Heaven?

One of the standard Xian interpretations of what gets a person into heaven is faith in Jesus Christ alone. It is largely for this reason that so many people become missionaries - to carry his word to them, to save as many of them as possible. But this leads to a moral quandry; I'll present the two main sample cases.1) Natives around the world before the arrival of western explorers: For millenia, they had absolutely no knowlege of Christ, no contact with Christians, or anything of the sort. Even in this century, there have been isolated tribes that have been discovered for the first time. What kind of loving god would damn entire native nations, some of millions of people, generation after generation for something that they had no capability to deal with?Please justify your response with passages in the bible that don't contradict with the passages from which you get your "faith alone" belief.2) Serial killers, who repent on their death bed and accept Jesus, can live their whole life doing not just bad works, but horrid works. Then, last minute, with no time left, they suddenly "see the light", and get to heaven. Meanwhile, all of the natives, listed in #1, are hellbound, despite how good of lives they may have lived.How do you reconcile these?(Edit: just for clarification, this is a legitimate question. Most Christians that I have posed it to have prefered to dodge, so I have begun to wonder if they actually have resolved it in their own minds.)------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 11-25-2003]

Hypotheticals Rei.Again you show you know nothing about Christianity.Can you not even type the work Christ ?

Um, what did your last sentance mean?If Rei knows nothing about Christianity, please enlighten them and me, and answer this simple question:According to the bible, can one enter heaven and be saved if they have faith in Christ alone, regardless of their actions?The Rock Hound

Seems you your knowlege is stunted too.
Try a search on google. Search for 'christian + saved + repent'Rei's Christian bashing is getting pretty predictable.

quote:

---

Hypotheticals Rei.

---

How is #1 in Rei's first post a hypothetical? Those people had no knowledge of Christ, and therefore could not possibly accept him, as is required by the Bible.

Zealot,If Rocky's explanation is so wrong, you should be easily able to explain what the correct description is and why it is either that it doesn't suffer from Rei's problem, or Rei's problem is illusionary?

Zealot, you expect polite answers to your questions. Why can't you answer this one. There wouldn't be much interesting discussion if the answer to everything was "google it" would there?I don't notice any bashing here. Just a difficult theological question. You don't like difficult questions?

I hesitate to post this at all simply because I am unsure as to whether there is a genuine search for information or not. If there is no desire to truly search into the matter then what is going on seems to be simple antagonism. But as I said, I am unsure of what the exact nature of this line of questioning is. So let me present a question.Would the two of you, and I mean Rei & Dan Caroll specifically and exclusively, look into Romans chapter 1 for me before continuing. I would really like it if you could read it from a King James Version, since that is what I will be discussing from. And the point, which you probably understand, is not to pass off your request with a suggestion to just go read something, but rather to begin the answering and posting of questions with a specific text in mind instead of hypothetical postulations, however valid they could potentially be.Well, this is my meager request which I would be grateful to see you respond to, or you could ignore it. Just know that I am asking in the interest of pursuing a real conversation about this and not to get into some kind of yelling match.Russ[edited for grammatical correction][This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-25-2003]

I just read it over, and I assume that this is what you mean:

quote:

---

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

---

(Please correct me if I'm wrong.)And this is well and good as far as knowledge of God goes. But how is a person who has never heard of Christ supposed to know about his sacrfice on the cross? How are they to know of specific rituals, such as baptism, or confession? How are they supposed to know about original sin in the first place?The very fact that the Bible exists (if we take it at face value) is because God felt the need to give the world specific instructions for salvation. The invisible things were not enough.Even if we assume that the invisibles things could help a person reach salvation through Christ if they looked hard enough, wouldn't the existence of the Bible be giving something of an unfair advantage to certain people? Why do they get a shortcut to this knowledge? Is God playing favorites?[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 11-25-2003]

I'd like to throw in my tuppence worth, this time FOR the Xians!I think a lot of atheists think that these people who have been nasty all their lives just suddenly turn around and start believing in Jesus, and then they are accepted in to heaven, it isn't as simple as that.They can say that they repent as much as they want but unless they truly believe in thier hearts that Jesus died for their sins then they ain't going anywhere except the big burny fire.The evil-doer has to truly believe in their hearts about Jesus and if they truly do they go through a 'spiritual rebirth' where their whole life changes.Of course this change in their lives may be purely psychological, but they display significant alterations to their behaviour and outlook on life. In other words, they truly believe that they have been forgiven by Jesus and their lives are altered.Xians would argue that anyone can repent and accept Jesus into thier lives and go through this rebirth, not only nasty people. Since the 'good' people, such as Gandhi, reject that Jesus is the way to salvation then they deserve all they get, (it isn't like Gandhi hadn't heard the Gospel now is it) and that is the burny fire.We have to remember that Xians believe that Jesus forgives all sins, except blashpemy of the Holy Spirit of course, and if the evil-doer is truly sorry for his actions then Jesus will save him, and this is reflected in that person's 'new life.'As to the people who died that did not know about Jesus, they can still be saved. After Jesus died, he went to hell to preach the Gospel to the souls in prison there, and apparently they could accept his offer if they wanted.So I think that it is ok for people to say that they have repented and accepted Jesus into their hearts but it is another thing entirely to prove that they have been saved.We, as atheists, need to remember that Xian mythology says that God sent his only son to earth so that whosoever believes in him shall have eternal life. Now that is the premise that they are working from, so murderers, rapists, theives, and every evil-doer you can think of is included in that 'whosoever'.Anyway, why should it be so strange that God would save a mass murderer or other type of evil-doer, he sanctioned so much murder himself that it shouldn't be a surprise.God wouldn't let David build the Temple because David had blood on his hands, but He established David's bloodline forever and said that the Messiah would be of David's 'house'.What about Joshua? He wasn't exactly a Sesame Street charatcer was he?I don't see any reason why God cannot save evil-doers, it may not sit right with us atheists, because our moral standards are far far higher than God's, but we have to accept it anyway.Brian.

First some fluff, then the stuff.Brian, your post gave me a brief coronary. Good thing there was a doctor nearby to revive me. Seriously, I am very impressed with the accuracy your post contained dealing with the salvation of those who have led seeming more wicked lives than the rest of humanity. One correction to those dying without hearing: Christ's descending and preaching is actually something that took place and was never repeated. However, this really is a point of soteriology in the context of the Old Covenant.Dan, confirm or deny the rumors: are you the artist behind the webcomic 'Real Life'? Inquiring minds want to know.Ok. Time to get serious. Dan, I did not mean that verse specifically, I meant the passage that begins a little before that verse and goes on, pretty much, until the end of the chapter. Also, I was not picking out one thought to dismiss your (and Rei's) arguments. I was merely trying to establish a scriptural launchpad for the discussion. And as much as I would like to start with that one statement, I can not because the whole idea I am hinting at has a context larger than the one verse. It does seem to me that your questions are sincere and not mere antagonism, which I greatly appreciate. So I hope you will understand that I am responding in like manner. I am not trying to kill time or duck the questions or any such thing. I simply want to approach this in an orderly fashion.I have been a little busy due to some academic constraints, but if you would examine the passage (Romans 1:16-32), then I assure you I will do my part and make my initial post at some point in the not too distant future of today. (This is, of course, assuming that Rei doesn't bring up any questions or comments that need to be dealt with before beginning formally)And as a last note, I do not mean to provoke the two of you (Rei and Dan), nor do I seek to exclude anyone else from commenting. I simply desire to have this discussion be reasonable and well ordered as opposed to some of the caustic mud fights that I have seen on this site so far. Again, I will make my initial post within the next 5+/- hours. Thank your for your patience.Russ

quote:

---

Dan, confirm or deny the rumors: are you the artist behind the webcomic 'Real Life'? Inquiring minds want to know.

---

Deny. I was the co-publisher of E-volution (before it folded), an editor for Savant (before it folded), a strip cartoonist for Small Press Magazine (sigh... before it folded), and recently had a piece on Modern Tales: Longplay. But that's the extent of the interaction between me, comics, and the web.[EDIT: I tell a lie. I just checked comixpedia, and it looks like they wound up using my article. So there's another.]

quote:

---

Dan, I did not mean that verse specifically, I meant the passage that begins a little before that verse and goes on, pretty much, until the end of the chapter.

---

Fair enough. I'll take some time to go over Romans a bit more in-depth before your next post, and we can go from there.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 11-25-2003]

Are you trying to claim that native Americans, for example, already knew in their hearts not just about the Christian God, *and* Jesus, but all of the things that the Christian God finds correct and incorrect?For example, Paul states, "They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.".Do Christians actually believe this, concerning native peoples? That they are inherently aware of the Christian God, and of Jesus, and his resurrection, and all of the things that the Christian God likes and doesn't like, and are "fully aware" (i.e., having full conscious knowlege) of his death penalty (including socieities which do not practice any sort of death penalty) for certain acts?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei,I am not trying to claim anything yet, that was the subject matter of post #11. I am merely trying to set up a situation in which we can discusss the issue of God's revelation in specific consideration of cultures we would say do not have the Bible. I have known other christians to present their case antagonistically on this site, and I have known the rebutters to do the very same. That is what I am trying to avoid. So instead then, I would like to look at this reasonably, taking the scripture as a starting off point.As far as what native people are "fully aware of", let me say that I can only go to statements in the word of God for an absolute perspective on what they fully know, anything beyond that is mere speculation. Unless of course I go to one of those locales to personally investigate and report my findings in a fair way. And since no one really wants to front me several hundred dollars for the plane ticket, nor do they desire to postpone the debate for several months, I was hoping we could begin by just sticking to what the Bible says about it. (the ticket part was my attempt at humor, not a biting remark)So then I present the same thing I said to Dan (sorry about the mis-applied rumor there by the way) and that is that I will make my initial post in a little while (I still have a little reading to do). In the meantime, if you (and anyone else interested, but you and Dan specifically) could review Romans 1:16-32 in the King James Version of the Bible it would assure me that we are all at least starting on the same page. Again, I expect to post in no more than 4 hrs tops.RussPostscript - I am not going to be dealing with the 2nd issue REIsed in the first post (couldn't resist the pun, sorry). This is simply because I think Brian has covered the issue well enough for now.[This message has been edited by apostolos, 11-25-2003]

quote:

---

sorry about the mis-applied rumor there by the way

---

That's cool. Normally I get people asking me if I'm related to Daniel Radcliffe, which is really annoying.If I don't respond too quick, it's because I'm going away on vacation tomorrow morning. But I will get to posts when I get back...