Something that has always bothered me about christianity.

[Airhog]

What fate awaits those that have no teaching of Christ and God? Say you lived on the american continent around Christs time. How could you have any knowledge of Jesus, or God? Would you go straight to hell for not even knowing? Not trying to start a raging war here, just curious about what other people think.

[Suicane75]

Not tonight honey, i have a headache. :)

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

I believe the people who were never exposed to accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will have a chance to do so when he returns. There is nothing in the bible that says you will go to hell if you were never even given the choice.

[ISiddiqui]

Well Dante put them in Limbo :D.

[sabotai]

What fate awaits those that have no teaching of Christ and God? Say you lived on the american continent around Christs time. How could you have any knowledge of Jesus, or God? Would you go straight to hell for not even knowing? Not trying to start a raging war here, just curious about what other people think.
Eskimo: Would I have gone to heaven if you never told me of Christ?
Christian Missionary: Well, yes.
Eskimo: Then why'd you tell me?

[yabanci]

I've asked this question many times, because it stabs at the heart of the whole christian theory of salvation. Nobody has ever been able a answer it. Nobody even really tries.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=743697&postcount=69

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=423524&postcount=371

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showpost.php?p=423562&postcount=373

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Why dont you consult the bible or a pastor or something yabanci. You people that try to disprove Christianity always bring up these what if questions and If we dont have an answer you feel you disprove our religion or an aspect of it. Christians do not have the magical answer to every question you can conjure. Its a FAITH based religion.

[LoneStarGirl]

Okay, I like to watch the Lakewood Church on Tv once in awhile, because its the biggest church in American and it's in Houston, where I'm from, any my family knows the pastor and his family and all. And one day I was watching and this question came up. The preacher said that there are different levels of hell, just like there are different levels of heaven. He said a passage from the Bible that kind of explained it, but I dont recall what it was. He said that the people who never heard about God or Jesus could have still looked up to the stars and realized that something greater than us all would have had to have created us. And by just realizing that, they would be excepted into heaven.

[Anthony]

there is no spoon.

[Groundhog]

This has always interested me too, and I've never been given a very good answer. Sure, I've been given answers by scripture teachers in high school and the like, usually along the lines of them being judged on their character after they die, but I don't believe I've ever seen that written in the bible (please prove me wrong).

I'm not religious, though I do have an interest in religion in general, and this to me is obviously a problem of more religions than just Christianity and it's branch religions. Some people say that there is one God, and all the different scriptures are different takes on that one God, but to me that's not nearly and adaquete answer. If that's the case, why be Christian over Muslim? What makes you think that your particular flavour of God is the true one? I find that most people are whatever religion they are due to their parents being that religion before them, so it's not like people are studying all the religions and then deciding that the one flavour in particular sounds more legit than the other, though how can you say that the fantastic stories in religion X are any more valid than those in religion Y?

I don't mean to sound like I'm slagging off or trying to invalidate religion either, like I said I'm interested in it even if I don't believe in it, and I'll never criticize someone for believing in it - it's just thoughts like the ones I've listed that make it impossible for me to believe it myself.

I have an excellent book at home titled "They Came to Japan: an anthology of European reports on Japan, 1543*-1640" by Michael Cooper which is a collection of letters written by (in most cases) Jesuits in Japan during the 16th and early 17th century. These were the first Europeans ever in Japan, and they brought their religion, which was until this time completely unknown, with them and managed to convert a surprising amount of Japanese, including some powerful men. Some of these Jesuits were truly great men who were fascinated and impressed by the alien Japanese culture, and it does paint a better picture of the medieval religious scene considering you only really hear of terrible acts of the church from this period. Of most interest to me in the book though was a list of questions a certain Japanese man (can't remember who) asked the Jesuit about his religion. They were very insightful questions, and I really wish Cooper had also translated the Jesuit's responses.

[Groundhog]

Why dont you consult the bible or a pastor or something yabanci. You people that try to disprove Christianity always bring up these what if questions and If we dont have an answer you feel you disprove our religion or an aspect of it. Christians do not have the magical answer to every question you can conjure. Its a FAITH based religion.

He's not trying to disprove Christianity, he is asking a legitimate question. It's great that you have full faith in your religion, however that is obviously not the case for everyone and some people need questions liked this answered.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Some people need to understand every question will never be answered if you subscribe to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other faith based religion. One can think of various situations that none of the religions can explain.

[Groundhog]

Some people need to understand every question will never be answered if you subscribe to Islam, Christianity, Judaism or any other faith based religion. One can think of various situations that none of the religions can explain.

Sure, but these are important questions. It's not like I'm asking the Christian God to tell me who's going to win the superbowl here...

[Schmidty]

I should read this and respond sincerely, but the only answer I had after reading your title was "Jesus"?

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

How is the question of what happens to people who lived before Christ or were never exposed to Christ so important. Of course that would be important to them.....But if you are deciding what religion is right for you then I dont see the importance.

[cthomer5000]

Teddy Ginn bothers me.

[Celeval]

What fate awaits those that have no teaching of Christ and God? Say you lived on the american continent around Christs time. How could you have any knowledge of Jesus, or God? Would you go straight to hell for not even knowing? Not trying to start a raging war here, just curious about what other people think.
Biggest reason for people not getting 'straight answers' to this are various combinations of these:

- Different branches of Christianity have different answers, first of all. Tough discussion to have if you're not talking about a specific flavor.

- Not everyone in a branch agrees. The Catholic Church used to teach about a place called Limbo somewhere in between Heaven and Hell, where those without mortal sin but were unbaptized through no fault of their own would go (typically the example was an infant), but that's fallen by the wayside somewhat since Vatican II - some older Catholics are right on top of Limbo as the answer here, while younger ones such as myself don't have that to fall back on.

- Simply put... no one knows. The Bible doesn't say. It implies a slew of things that can be taken any which way, but doesn't flat out state anything. So, really, it's unanswerable to any true fashion.

Sorry to disappoint. :-D

[sovereignstar]

Would Jesus use red font in his sig?

[AENeuman]

From Rahner: hxxp://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=2079&C=1962

It should, however, be noted that Christianity has a historical beginning in Christ; but this means only that this absolute religion, too, must come to men historically, confronting and claiming them as their legitimate religion.

The question is therefore: Is the moment in time at which this absolute historical religion makes existentially real demands on men the same for all, or has the beginning of this moment itself a history and thus is not the same in time for all men, all civilizations and periods of history.

For we shall positively state only that Christianity is meant to be the absolute and therefore unique religion of all mankind, but we leave open the question at which moment in time it is objectively binding for any man and any civilization. It should be noted that we are therefore concerned with the fact that a social entity is needed for salvation.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The question is therefore: Is the moment in time at which this absolute historical religion makes existentially real demands on men the same for all, or has the beginning of this moment itself a history and thus is not the same in time for all men, all civilizations and periods of history.

For we shall positively state only that Christianity is meant to be the absolute and therefore unique religion of all mankind, but we leave open the question at which moment in time it is objectively binding for any man and any civilization. It should be noted that we are therefore concerned with the fact that a social entity is needed for salvation.


:confused:

wha??

[stkelly52]

If you study into Christian Theology much you will learn about General Revelation. That is that God has made himself known to man through nature. The fact that everything fits into place is evidence of God's existiance. If man sees this and has the desire to know who God is, then God will make himself know to that man.

Of course if you get into strict Calvinist Theology, God chooses who will accept him and who will not. Those who never heard are some of the ones who were predestined to not believe. Others will soften that line a bit to say that those who never heard were the ones who God knew would never believe (thus keeping the much more comfortable view of free will that most people want to think we have).

[ISiddiqui]

How is the question of what happens to people who lived before Christ or were never exposed to Christ so important. Of course that would be important to them.....But if you are deciding what religion is right for you then I dont see the importance.
Because some people don't want to belong to a religion which says that people who weren't exposed to the word cannot be saved. It seems... unfair.

[Desnudo]

Okay, I like to watch the Lakewood Church on Tv once in awhile, because its the biggest church in American and it's in Houston, where I'm from, any my family knows the pastor and his family and all. And one day I was watching and this question came up. The preacher said that there are different levels of hell, just like there are different levels of heaven. He said a passage from the Bible that kind of explained it, but I dont recall what it was. He said that the people who never heard about God or Jesus could have still looked up to the stars and realized that something greater than us all would have had to have created us. And by just realizing that, they would be excepted into heaven.

Different levels of Hell, I'd be curious to know what the difference would be.

[yabanci]

....Simply put... no one knows. The Bible doesn't say. It implies a slew of things that can be taken any which way, but doesn't flat out state anything.....

But it does. See, e.g., John 4:16 ("no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"); Mark 16:16 ("he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned").

[Celeval]

But it does. See, e.g., John 4:16 ("no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"); Mark 16:16 ("he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned").
And Mark leaves a nice wide hole for those who may believeth and are not baptized. Your point?

[Sharpieman]

And Mark leaves a nice wide hole for those who may believeth and are not baptized. Your point?
good point

[Raiders Army]

Different levels of Hell, I'd be curious to know what the difference would be.
Me too, but I'd rather learn vicariously through someone else.

[Sharpieman]

Me too, but I'd rather learn vicariously through someone else.
Read Dante's Divine Comedy, its actually a pretty cool book.

[Raiders Army]

I've heard of it in High School, but unless he was really there, how does he know?

[Antmeister]

I should read this and respond sincerely, but the only answer I had after reading your title was "Jesus"?


Would Jesus use red font in his sig?

I know this may not be appropriate, but these comments almost had me crying.

[Blackadar]

FBMachine: i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section

[wishbone]

What fate awaits those that have no teaching of Christ and God? Say you lived on the american continent around Christs time. How could you have any knowledge of Jesus, or God? Would you go straight to hell for not even knowing? Not trying to start a raging war here, just curious about what other people think.

Mormons believe that the people on the American continent were descendants of a group of people that left Jerusalem around 600BC and that Christ came to the american continent after being crucified. We also believe that when you die, you go to a spirit world to wait for the resurrection and that during that time you can accept Christ. So everyone will have the oppurtunity.

I personally think a lot of people get to hung up on death, we lived before Earth, we live on Earth and we will live after Earth.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Basically the only solid point here is that people who do not believe will be damned. Those who have not had the chance to believe do not fit in that category, so I would assume they would have some other chance at salvation. Or they would be judged solely upon how they lived their life. Im not an expert on the bible so there may be other passages dealing with this situation but I dont think so. Its just a gray area.

[mhass]

It is a common understanding among modern evangelical Christians that God will hold you accountable for what you know, not for what you don't know. So those people that died having never heard the gospel will not be condemned for that lack of knowledge. And as said earlier, they will get the chance to acknowledge Christ as savior when he returns. Until then, we are not sure of the status of their soul, but they almost certainly are not in heaven.

[Huckleberry]

The idea that these questions shouldn't matter to someone deciding on religion is laughable.

I consider it a pretty damn important decision criterion. By accepting Christianity I would have to accept the idea that if my family were to die in a car accident on the way home next weekend I would go to Heaven, my wife would go to Heaven, my 4 year old daughter would go to Heaven, but my 15 month old daughter would not.

No thanks.

[lighthousekeeper]

FBMachine: i got kicked out of barnes and noble once for moving all the bibles into the fiction section


thank you for making reading this thread worth it!

[jeff061]

"Believe what I tell you and do what I tell you or you will suffer for eternity!!"

Nice.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Ok Huckleberry firstly children arent even accountable for their actions in Gods eyes until about 12? or so in the scripture. That throws your typical "what if" situation out the window. Also do you think a merciful God that sent his son to die for our sins, is going to send children to hell because they were never exposed to his teachings.....

[Blackadar]

thank you for making reading this thread worth it!

I've just gotten a bit tired of all the religious threads lately and decided to have a bit of fun.


:D

[BrianD]

Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or...or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do...what do they do? They...They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions...by inhibiting our decisions, out of...out of fear of some...some intangible parent figure who...who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says...and says, "Do it--Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you!"

[lighthousekeeper]

Ok Huckleberry firstly children arent even accountable for their actions in Gods eyes until about 12? or so in the scripture. That throws your typical "what if" situation out the window. Also do you think a merciful God that sent his son to die for our sins, is going to send children to hell because they were never exposed to his teachings.....

i think god feared his son's growing power and sent him to earth to die. there's a verse somewhere in Numbers alluding to that.

[QuikSand]

Faith doesn't necessarily have to include fairness.

If you decide up front that your belief system needs to adhere to some particular system of logic or equality in order to pass your personal acceptance test -- then what you're engaging in doesn't really seem like faith.

I personally am not wild about a concept of salvation that, essentially, ignores the logical prcept of "ought implies can," but at the same time I don't feel that gives me the right to reject others who adhere to it as a matter of faith. It's not for me, but it's not my faith.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

lighthousekeeper when you find that verse please please post it. That sounds proposterous.

[lighthousekeeper]

Faith doesn't necessarily have to include fairness.

If you decide up front that your belief system needs to adhere to some particular system of logic or equality in order to pass your personal acceptance test -- then what you're engaging in doesn't really seem like faith.

I personally am not wild about a concept of salvation that, essentially, ignores the logical prcept of "ought implies can," but at the same time I don't feel that gives me the right to reject others who adhere to it as a matter of faith. It's not for me, but it's not my faith.


what he's trying to say nicely is that religion and critical thinking don't mix.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

No what hes saying is faith cannot always be explained with critical thinking. Its FAITH.

[QuikSand]

what he's trying to say nicely is that religion and critical thinking don't mix.

Nor, perhaps, should they.

[Cringer]

Is this a good thread for me to come out of the closet in?

[stkelly52]

The idea that these questions shouldn't matter to someone deciding on religion is laughable.

I consider it a pretty damn important decision criterion. By accepting Christianity I would have to accept the idea that if my family were to die in a car accident on the way home next weekend I would go to Heaven, my wife would go to Heaven, my 4 year old daughter would go to Heaven, but my 15 month old daughter would not.

No thanks.

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

[rexallllsc]

If you study into Christian Theology much you will learn about General Revelation. That is that God has made himself known to man through nature. The fact that everything fits into place is evidence of God's existiance. If man sees this and has the desire to know who God is, then God will make himself know to that man.

Predestined? Are you admitting that this brain that god supposedly created will not let me believe in him? I wish I could believe things based on "faith" but I don't/can't. Neither do most Christians, but for their god they make an exception.

[st.cronin]

I think it was William James who argued that faith is not something we choose. The demonstration was something like, try to believe that the Earth is flat. As hard as you try, you can't believe it - because faith is not something we can arbitrarily CHOOSE.

[Blackadar]

Is this a good thread for me to come out of the closet in?

Perfect!

[rexallllsc]

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

Rules? Who gave us these rules? Show me that they came from god and I'll listen.

As far as our "limited human perception" I completely agree. We're VERY limited in our understanding of why we're here (if there's any purpose at all), and what is "out there" which is why I cannot rationalize it by saying "god did it". I need a bit more. Personally, I think those that "reject" god are the ones that end to accept their "limited human perception"...

[rexallllsc]

Basically the only solid point here is that people who do not believe will be damned.

Man, that is a great (read: funny) line.

[st.cronin]

rexallsc I suppose it depends on what you imagine 'God' to mean. I have always defined it as 'that which I do not understand.'

[rexallllsc]

rexallsc I suppose it depends on what you imagine 'God' to mean. I have always defined it as 'that which I do not understand.'

I guess so. To me, "that which I do not understand" is simply "that which I do not understand". I would feel ridiculous trying to label or explain it.

[Sharpieman]

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?
If its true, then God is not just, and if God is not just, God is not God.

[st.cronin]

If its true, then God is not just, and if God is not just, God is not God.

How so?

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

The thing is there is nothing that says those who were not exposed to God will be sent to hell. Also theres nothing that says they will automatically go to heaven that I know of. Its just not dealt with as far as I know. So those that are saying I dont want to be a christian if God isnt fair are either looking for a cop out or seriously jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

[Passacaglia]

Since we're talking about Christianity, here's my question for y'all. It may have ben touched upon on here before, but: Is Christianity monotheistic? I mean, there's the Trinity -- father, son, and holy ghost. More specifically, Christianity makes several references to Jesus being God and Jesus being the son of God -- which is it?

[st.cronin]

Since we're talking about Christianity, here's my question for y'all. It may have ben touched upon on here before, but: Is Christianity monotheistic? I mean, there's the Trinity -- father, son, and holy ghost. More specifically, Christianity makes several references to Jesus being God and Jesus being the son of God -- which is it?

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

[judicial clerk]

The question posed is one of my big religious questions. Another is how do we know that the Bible is true?

[Sharpieman]

How so?
Well, what I'm trying to say is, God wouldn't limit himself to people over the age of 7 and living particular regions or cities or towns. Its true that the vast majority of people in the world don't pick their religion (survey them all and choose the best one for themselves) but ones culture and environment determines ones religion.

[Sharpieman]

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.
Well it wasn't too hard for the theologian who made it up to understand. The word Trinity isn't even in the Bible and there are only references to the Trinity that can be easily interpreted different ways within the bible.

[st.cronin]

Well, what I'm trying to say is, God wouldn't limit himself to people over the age of 7 and living particular regions or cities or towns.

Again, how so? The will of God is something man doesn't have access to, except insofar as it manifests itself in his personal experience.

[Sharpieman]

Again, how so? The will of God is something man doesn't have access to, except insofar as it manifests itself in his personal experience.
Let me rephrase that, the alternative to what I am saying is bascially if your born in a certain area then your already damned.

[st.cronin]

So what your saying is basically that since someone was born in a certain area, then they are damned?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that you seem to think that God's will is something that can be understood and reasoned with (or about).

[Sharpieman]

So God's will is not reasonable?

[Anthony]

Well it wasn't too hard for the theologian who made it up to understand.

bolded the important part there for you. :)

[Telle]

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?

I think you're skewing this a bit. For those who actively search for and choose a religion (rather than simply taking the one they inherited), it only makes sense to go with the one that makes the most sense and "feels right" to the person. I may reject a concept of God because it does not fit in what I believe to be fair, and choose a different concept of God because it does fit in what I believe to be fair. Beyond what makes the most sense to me and feels the most right to me, what basis to I have to choose religion A over religion B?

[Passacaglia]

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

In my metamathematics class, there was a theorem that said something like a contradiction implies anything. One of the other students in my class used to say whenever he was implying something from a contradiction, "I am the pope," meaning he could state whatever fact he wanted to. It seems fitting in this case, since I am the pope.

[Blackadar]

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.

Kinda makes it tough to do "his bidding" then, doesn't it?


EDIT: Damn time stamp bug.

[st.cronin]

So God's will is not reasonable?

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.

[Sharpieman]

CORRECT

It is beyond human understanding.
So God is irrational now. If what you are saying is true, then there is no reason to speculate or practice religion because it is all beyond our understanding. Without having meaning in ones life its pointless to live.

[st.cronin]

So God is irrational now. If what you are saying is true, then there is no reason to speculate or practice religion because it is all beyond our understanding. Without having meaning in ones life its pointless to live.

Incorrect. If God's Will is beyond your understanding, it does not follow that God's Will is without reason.

And the meaning one finds in one's life ... well, I'm not going to touch that one just yet. Too many ways to go.

[Desnudo]

Me too, but I'd rather learn vicariously through someone else.

Maybe on Level One they just give you a hot foot or a wedgie a few times a day.

[Sharpieman]

Incorrect. If God's Will is beyond your understanding, it does not follow that God's Will is without reason.

And the meaning one finds in one's life ... well, I'm not going to touch that one just yet. Too many ways to go.
So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

[AENeuman]

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.


Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm

DM

[stkelly52]

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.

And they could be totally right. It would behoove you to determine which it is. The stakes are very high.

[BrianD]

And they could be totally right. It would behoove you to determine which it is. The stakes are very high.

Or completely meaningless depending on the "right" answer.

[rexallllsc]

All of the above. Theologians generally admit it's a concept that's too hard for human brains to fully understand.

Yet it was created by man! Heeelarious!

[st.cronin]

So anything is really possible. Christians could be totally and completely wrong about Christ, God and the Bible.


Well, sure. That's one way of looking at it.

[Passacaglia]

Words are very unnecessary
They can only do harm

DM

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours,
but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour
and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

[rexallllsc]

Let me rephrase that, the alternative to what I am saying is bascially if your born in a certain area then your already damned.

WHICH IS WHY WE BOMB THE HEATHENS.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you can help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." -GWB

[yabanci]

And Mark leaves a nice wide hole for those who may believeth and are not baptized. Your point?

"He that believeth not shall be damned." Which part of that is ambiguous?

That is what we are talking about here. Those who "believeth not" because the all knowing, all powerful, benevolent god neglected to give them an opportunity to beleiveth and, therefore, damned them.

Unless you go with the loophole theory.

There's a loophole (which the perfect jesus forgot to mention) that says if you haven't heard about it, then you're not damned but instead go somewhere else.

If you go to heaven under the loophole, that's very strange, because then you have running around in heaven, for example, the mayas whom I alluded to in a previous post who spent their lives worshiping various gods, sacrificing humans, committing all sorts of unspeakable atrocities, who get in under the "didn't hear about it" loophole. In contrast, take someone like Gandhi who actually put christ's teachings into practice and lived by them but was never a christian or any of the millions of Jews who spent their lives devoutly worshiping god (the same one as the christians) and doing nothing but good works during their lives but get damned to burn in hell for eternity because they did not accept jesus as their savior.

That's one strange loophole and one strange system of heaven and hell.

Or maybe the loophole is that those who weren't given the opportunity to believeth go someplace other than heaven, maybe to a better kind of hell than Gandhi and the Jews get (for they must get the worst, having rejected christ) or maybe some type of limbo where they wait around for thousands of years until jesus comes back and says, "I'm king of the world," and at that point they all get to accept him and go to heaven despite their lives of idol worship and atrocities.

Still a very strange loophole and strange system of heaven and hell.

In any event, where are these loopholes explained in the bible? I'd like to read them.

[Telle]

There is a liberal Christian train of thought that basically says that "hell" is merely being separated from God. So I suppose that those that never heard of God to begin with won't exactly know what they're missing out on.. and thus them "going to hell" isn't that big of a deal.

[Celeval]

In any event, where are these loopholes explained in the bible? I'd like to read them.
They're not. And I'm okay with that. There are absolutely things that one has to take on faith... or come to terms with not understanding everything. Doesn't mean I don't want to understand, just that I don't believe I will fully understand until... whatever comes.

[Blackadar]

There is a liberal Christian train of thought that basically says that "hell" is merely being separated from God. So I suppose that those that never heard of God to begin with won't exactly know what they're missing out on.. and thus them "going to hell" isn't that big of a deal.

Actually, that's a very jewish view.

[Huckleberry]

The problem with your statement is that you are basically saying "I don't like the way the rules work, and I don't think that they are fair, so I am not going to believe it." But what if it is true? Will you reject the concept of God because he does not fit what you (in your limited human perception) believe to be fair?
Absolutely.

[panerd]

So on 9-11-01 a athiest firefighter goes into the twin towers and saves a bunch of Christians and is killed in the process. One of those saved lived a life of crime, deciet, and ill will towards man but repented and now has asked for God's forgiveness. When you show me a church that will correctly tell me which of the two men (firefighter or low life) deserves to be in heaven and I will start considering listening to Christianity again.

[Franklinnoble]

So on 9-11-01 a athiest firefighter goes into the twin towers and saves a bunch of Christians and is killed in the process. One of those saved lived a life of crime, deciet, and ill will towards man but repented and now has asked for God's forgiveness. When you show me a church that will correctly tell me which of the two men (firefighter or low life) deserves to be in heaven and I will start considering listening to Christianity again.
We are saved by grace, not works. Because none are truly worthy, not one.

[Raiders Army]

I believe that there are reasons for everything. Maybe not good reasons, but there are reasons for everything. The answer to the OP's question is another question. Why are we here? What is our reason for being here and living a life? If that answer is found, then the OP's question can be answered.

Personally, I like to think that maybe we experience "life" and then when we die, we experience "life" on a difference level. Perhaps there is no Heaven or Hell, and the only reason why those concepts were brought about were to scare people into being good and providing a "just reward" for good people.

If God is all-powerful, then why is there a Devil? Why does God let good people die? Well, one theory is that God is selfish. God wants us to pick him. Is God a good guy? There are many arguments saying that maybe he isn't. Who would kill millions in a flood (don't tell me that Noah and his family were the only good people in the world)? The Old Testament is full of God being wrathful and perhaps a little unmerciful.

So God says don't pick these other religions or you won't go to the Playboy Mansion of the afterlife. Fine. The Devil is evil. Don't pick him. Great. Now, people are left with no choice but to pick God (who may or may not necessarily be a good dude). I believe God was the first politician. These guys are evil. I may have my faults, but pick me because I'm the best choice. I'll even sacrifice my son so you'll join me. I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is that there is no choice. Christians may argue that people have a choice, but God offers none.

My nickel.

[rexallllsc]

In contrast, take someone like Gandhi who actually put christ's teachings into practice and lived by them but was never a christian or any of the millions of Jews who spent their lives devoutly worshiping god (the same one as the christians) and doing nothing but good works during their lives but get damned to burn in hell for eternity because they did not accept jesus as their savior.

Who does Gandhi think he is, being born in India and all?

[Airhog]

He probably thinks he's Ghandhi

[rexallllsc]

He probably thinks he's Ghandi

You lost me there!

[st.cronin]

To me the questions of hell and evil are primarily academic questions, and are tangential to the essential nature of Christianity, which is

That God loves us and wants us to be happy, and

That we need not fear death.

[Abe Sargent]

Okay, Rev. Sargent weighing in here. First of all, it is never unfair to ask questions of Christianity, God, or faith. No question, asked to gain knowledge and enlightenment, is inappropriate.

The simple fact is that there is no easy answer to this question, because the question was not addressed in the writers of the Bible. There are several legitimate interpretations of the Bible on this point, based on where you put your weight.

1). Some believe that the idea of original sin means that all mankind is doomed to Hell unless they repent. Since those who have not heard of God cannot repent, they are bound to Hell.

2). Some believe that the idea of original sin applies once someone has sinned. To be fair, even children can sin. Even when I was 6, I knew that when I shoplifted from the local store, it was wrong. I hid my actions, I did not tell anybody, I hid the comics I stole in my room so no one would ask questions, and so forth. Once a child is old enough to sin, then they are old enough to ask for repentance. Failure to do so results in going to Hell after death.

3). Through a combination of nature, intuition, and experience, God reveals himself to all men. Even if they have never heard the gospel, they can know he exists and accept him as their lord, and are judged on that.

4). God, as the knower of all knowable things, knows hypothetical knowledge as well. Therefore, God knows whether or not a specific person would have accepted God, if they had the appropriate information. As such, God will judge those based on the predicate choices they made.

5). When a person dies, they stand before God to be judged. At that time, anybody who has not had an opportunity to do so, will have a chance to be redeemed.

6). Prior to Christ, all people who died went to Hades, where they lived in either Paradise or Sheol (this is Old Testament doctrine) based on their actions and decisions. After Christ died, he decended into Hell to set free those who lived in Paradise to take them to Heaven. The Paradise/Sheol dichotomy is also used for those who have never heard the Word of God, and when Christ comes back a second and final time, again the captives will be freed, and the remainder will be sent to the Lake of Fire.

7). God has preordained who will accept him and who will deny him. As a result, those who never heard, were preordained to never hear and never choose, and thus they suffer damnation.


All of those are arguably Biblical. You can find support for any of these views, and they all appear to be legitimate interpretations of scripture. I may have missed one or two (although I intentially left out extra-Biblical answers). How one answers this question helps to determine what doctrine you adhere to. For example, I am an Arminian. That means I am essentially anti-Calvin. I reject any idea of predestination, and believe instead that God is a living being whose interactions with us can change things.

To me, an ordained minister with a heavy American Baptist background, I lean towards the third option. First of all, it's canonical (check out Romans Chapter One). Second of all, it seems logical. I detest idea #7, and I only include it for completeness's sake. In fact, hard core Calvinist thought (idea #7), has largely left the Protestant Churches. There is a modern day softer Calvin approach, and of course individuals are free to choose Calvinist doctrine as their beliefs, but very few teach it today.

Once again, no question is out of bounds. Likewise, understand that Christians do not always have the answers. Certainly no one individual does. Feel encouraged to ask questions, and shame on any Christian who discourages you from asking the hard ones. I remember a Sunday School teacher, when I was a child, who was asked by another child "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock so big He can't move it?" It's a classic question, and one asked regularly. In fact, it calls into question the very natures of God's power, and is a perfectly logical question to ask. However, the teacher responded, "You should not test God." My response, internally, was to wonder how asking a good question is "testing" God. So don't feel like you have to stifle your questions, like I was encouraged to do as a child.

On another note, to discuss some of what I have read in this thread: Churches are a human instituion, and as such, are subject to all of the failures of humanity. There is corruption, lust, villiany, pride, greed and more all in the churches. Humans are not perfect, so their works cannot be either. This is not a refelction of God, however. God has not created the individual churches, He created The Church, the instituion of Christians meeting together for worship and fellowship, not the First Baptist Church of Randomville.

-Anxiety

[Abe Sargent]

If God is all-powerful, then why is there a Devil? Why does God let good people die? Well, one theory is that God is selfish. God wants us to pick him. Is God a good guy? There are many arguments saying that maybe he isn't. Who would kill millions in a flood (don't tell me that Noah and his family were the only good people in the world)? The Old Testament is full of God being wrathful and perhaps a little unmerciful.



Here are some excellent questions, and ones asked regularly. In philosophy, the question that you asked is referred to as The Problem of Evil. If God is good, then He does not want evil to exist. If He is Omnipotent, then he is able to stop it. If He is Omniscient, then He'll know how to do so. As such, an omnipotent, omniescient, omnibenevolent being would stamp out evil, or prevent it from ever occuring.

The classic Christian defense is what is called the Free Will Defense. Creatures with free will (us) are of a higher importance than creatures without free will when determining good and evil. In other words, if I do good works because I am forced to do so, then I have done nothing good. However, if I choose to good works, of my own free will, then that has merit. In order to achieve free will, God has to allow evil to be chosen as well, and that is where evil comes from.

Fair enough, the Problem of Evil guy responds. Maybe some evil has to exist. However, certainyl there could be less evil than what we have right now. Plus, your Free Will Defense does not address other evil, like plague, earthquakes, and so forth. When God creates the world, he has to create the best possible world. After all, God knows how to, can and should wnat to create the best possible world. But folks, this ain't it.

How the Christian addresses this further point from The Problem of Evil differs. Some responses of which I am familiar:

1). Yes, this is the best possible world.

2). God's knowledge is of all knowable things. The future is unwritten and therefore unknowable. As such, God could not know what sort of world he created, he just did the best he could.

3). Although God exists, he lacks either omnipotence, omnibenevolence, or omniescience, and as such, is lacking one fo the three things needed for The Problem of Evil's premise.

4). You have to examine a world in its totality. Imagine a galaxy teeming with life. Most of the alien races treat each other kindly, warmly, but there are a handful of planets where people are downright mean and nasty. Still, overall, the galaxy's inhabitatns have chosen good actions 90% of the time. Suppose this is the best possible world. Even then, there are places where it is really bad. Likewise, we have witnessed particularly brutal times in our history, but overall, our history is one of helping each other to succeed, and that is why we are the best possible world.

5). Why would God stop at creating one world? All of the factors that went into making one world would also result in God wanting to add another world. When God considers all possible worlds, he chooses the best and creates it. Then, after resting, he creates the next best world, and so forth. He continues until all worlds where good outnumbers bad are created. So no, this does not have to be the best possible world, it just has to be one of the good ones.


I prefer answer #5, myself. It seems the most rational and logical to me.

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

On another note, to discuss some of what I have read in this thread: Churches are a human instituion, and as such, are subject to all of the failures of humanity. There is corruption, lust, villiany, pride, greed and more all in the churches. Humans are not perfect, so their works cannot be either. This is not a refelction of God, however. God has not created the individual churches, He created The Church, the instituion of Christians meeting together for worship and fellowship, not the First Baptist Church of Randomville.

This is interesting. The way I translate this is that humans are imperfect, so our churches will naturally be imperfect, but is not indicative of the perfectness of God. So....I can imply that God is perfect.

That is a very disturbing thought to me. If God is perfect, then why are we here? Are we amusement for God? Obviously he let the Devil exist and let man sin if he is perfect. Then he lets us decide whether to embrace him or "turn away" from him. That is a cruel and selfish God, not a just and loving God. I believe that if this is the case, then our entire existence is only for the amusement of God, ala Sid Meier's Civilization.

[Abe Sargent]

This is interesting. The way I translate this is that humans are imperfect, so our churches will naturally be imperfect, but is not indicative of the perfectness of God. So....I can imply that God is perfect.

That is a very disturbing thought to me. If God is perfect, then why are we here? Are we amusement for God? Obviously he let the Devil exist and let man sin if he is perfect. Then he lets us decide whether to embrace him or "turn away" from him. That is a cruel and selfish God, not a just and loving God. I believe that if this is the case, then our entire existence is only for the amusement of God, ala Sid Meier's Civilization.


You can see some of my thoughts on this question in my other response. I believe that God created us because we add to the overall good of existance by our presence.

Imagine that good has a numerical value assigned to it. The better a world is, the greater a numerical value it has (and by "better" I mean anything you mike like to include, that matter is up to debate.) Evil worlds (again, use whatever qualificstions you perfer for "evil world") have a negative value, where the worse they are, the lower the number. I imagine that God created all of the positive worlds that increase the overall good of existance.

Of course, that's just my thoughts on the matter. As to specifics on why, I imagine that God's benevolence is the answer. What use is there is being all-loving if you cannot show that love?

-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

This is assuming that God is all-loving. His actions contradict that somewhat (see above arguments). If God is not all-loving, then why would God want to increase the overall good number? My thoughts would be it would be for his amusement or ego.

[Abe Sargent]

This is assuming that God is all-loving. His actions contradict that somewhat (see above arguments). If God is not all-loving, then why would God want to increase the overall good number? My thoughts would be it would be for his amusement or ego.


I don't disbelieve God as omnibenevolent. That's the easist of the "big three" characteristics to believe. It's much easier for me to believe that a being that is non-human is able to always want what is best for the world, since that being is not bound by human foibles. It's much harder for me to conceptualize a being as able to do anyhting possible or know everything knowable.

I hate to use the following, classicly Christian cop-out to hard answers, "Well, we do not have the knowledge of God, so how can we judge him?" I find the statement to be intellectually dishonest. I may not be a mathematician, but I can dispute him when he says 2+2=5.

What examples do you have of God's cruelty? You mention Noah's flood. Are you aware that many interpret Genesis as saying that, in Noah's time, people were not genetically pure? I admit that I do not understand all of the Hebrew, but there are a few verses that speak to man's evil during Hoah's time. There is a statement that says something akin to "These were the days when the Giants walked among the men" or something to that effect. Nephilliam they are called, if I remember correctly. Many Hebrew scholars, both Christian and Jew, believe that Satan had tried to taint the genetic pool of mankind by intermarrying demons and humans. That way, God would never be able to fulfill his promise of having the seed of Adam destroy Satan, because nobody would be genetically pure.

Therefore, these scholars believe that Noah was likely one of the few remaining genetically pure people, and likely the only remaining one who was righteous.

Now, there are other responses as well, but that is a fairly commonly held belief by many respected theologians.

Another view is to say that the Old Testament shows God through the eyes of one particular tribal culture. It's the only ancient people to worship and recognize him, but they still skew the view of God. That's why multiple marriages are sanctioned, God sometimes appears to be quite vengeful, and so forth. It's simply an old tribal view of God.

That's why the New Testament exists. It's is God's opportunity to set the record straight about God. Don't cheat on your wife. Love everybody, even your enemies. Don't fight, love. Give willingly to others. Don't judge, lest you be judged. None of you is more righteous than the lowest members of your society. And so forth. The New Testament is the authority for Christians about the nature of God. Sure, there are lessons in the Old Testament as well, but it is in the New Testament that we can read about God from his lips.

By the way, although I am not willing to discount the Noah/Demons theory, I am much more satisfied by the second answer.


-Anxiety

[GMO]

Here is an answer -
The answer is not in the New Testament and God hasn't told me, so I don't know.

Maybe God didn't give the answer to that question because it doesn't matter (God judges people, we don't), it's too complex, it's none of our business or many other possibile answers.

God hasn't given us all knowledge about all subjects i.e. we don't know everything there is to know about physics, math, biology etc.
Why should we expect to be told everything about everything?

[Raiders Army]

Maybe God didn't give the answer to that question because it doesn't matter (God judges people, we don't), it's too complex, it's none of our business or many other possibile answers.
I believe it is our business, since it concerns our very existence.

God hasn't given us all knowledge about all subjects i.e. we don't know everything there is to know about physics, math, biology etc.
Why should we expect to be told everything about everything?
I'm sorry, but can you give examples of where God has given us knowledge about Physics, Math, Biology, etc.? Is that in the Old or New Testament?

[Blackadar]

That's why the New Testament exists. It's is God's opportunity to set the record straight about God.

By the way, although I am not willing to discount the Noah/Demons theory, I am much more satisfied by the second answer.


-Anxiety

If God needs to "set the record straight about God", that implies that the Old Testament is faulty or incorrect. If it is, then either God's word is faulty/incorrect or the Old Testament isn't God's word at all? Or did God change his mind?

By extension, if the Old Testament needed to be corrected, how can you be sure that the New one is correct?

[Abe Sargent]

If God needs to "set the record straight about God", that implies that the Old Testament is faulty or incorrect. If it is, then either God's word is faulty/incorrect or the Old Testament isn't God's word at all? Or did God change his mind?

By extension, if the Old Testament needed to be corrected, how can you be sure that the New one is correct?


The response to that is very simple. The New Testament is distinguished from the Old Testament becuase was actually have recorded what Jesus said. The four gospels - four different versionso fevents through four different people - agree on an awful lot. There are also a slew of other gospels, not included in the Bible. Obviously, some gospels are just crazy, written by extremists to piggyback on the craze, but most agree on the major points.

By contrast, the Old Testament rarely quotes God. You'll note that, for the most part, it simply says what God meant, or what God supposedly said, and so forth.

In fact, most people who point out errors in the Bible, use the Old Testament oto do so. For example, when classifiyng animals that are clean and unclean, the Old Testament classifies a Rabiit as an animal that chews its cud. Now we know that rabbits have never chewed their cud - they are not a ruminate animal. This is an apparent error, and only the purely dogmatic wil defend it (I have heard Christians say, "Well, maybe rabbits chewed their cud back then").

Now, to be fair, the Old Testament has become a very reliable historical document. For decades, scholars doubted many Old Testament stories, and then found out they were true, like the Persian exlie of Judea or the existance of a ruler named Nebechanezar (hopefully I spelled that right).

Again, the Old Testament is simply one view of God. One attempt by a tribal people to put into words their God. Hence the New Testament, specifically the Gospels.

Like I said, this is one defense against the claim that God did evil things in the Old Testament, and therefore cannot be omnibenevolent. It is one I lean towards, that's true, but it is merely one point of view.


-Anxiety

[RendeR]

Why can't the believers leave those of us who choose to disbelieve or are simply unconvinced alone?

Is it God's will that they annoy the living fuck out of the rest of us?

[Cuckoo]

Why can't the believers leave those of us who choose to disbelieve or are simply unconvinced alone?

Is it God's will that they annoy the living fuck out of the rest of us?


Hahahaha...

I haven't really kept up with this thread, but this is a fairly humorous commentary to be placed in a thread where a "non-believer" asked a question of "believers." Now you see why the vasy majority of "believers" prefer to stay out of discussions like this on FOFC. Talk about a lose-lose situation.

[Abe Sargent]

Why can't the believers leave those of us who choose to disbelieve or are simply unconvinced alone?

Is it God's will that they annoy the living fuck out of the rest of us?


Why would you want them to?

If I tell people how I wenbt to see a movie and I really liked it, and I think they should go, they don't ask me to keep my opinions to myself. They don't say that movie selection is a personal choice and that I should not stay out of their discussion. They welcome my opinion and listen. Why shoudl religious conversation be taboo?

Let's view it a differently. If a person honestly believes that people who are not saved are doomed to Hell, and that all they need to do is accept that they are sinners, and accept Christ into their lives, and they go to Heaven, why wouldn't they want to talk about it? If they didn't, wouldn't you question their belief?

If that belief turns out to be true, wouldn't you be upset if they didn't?


-Anxiety

[Raiders Army]

Why can't the believers leave those of us who choose to disbelieve or are simply unconvinced alone?

Is it God's will that they annoy the living fuck out of the rest of us?
I'm pretty much a non-believer, but I don't view this thread as being "annoying the living fuck" out of me. I look at it as reasonable discourse that is meant to stimulate thought, not try to convert.

[Telle]

Why would you want them to?

If I tell people how I wenbt to see a movie and I really liked it, and I think they should go, they don't ask me to keep my opinions to myself. They don't say that movie selection is a personal choice and that I should not stay out of their discussion. They welcome my opinion and listen. Why shoudl religious conversation be taboo?



Now let's say you go and see that movie, then start telling me about it. A few sentences in I say "You know what, I don't really like action movies/chick flicks/dramas/movies with a particular actor/whatever". If you kept going on and on about it after I told you once or twice that I wasn't interested, I'd get pretty annoyed. Now let's say this became the number one hit movie, and lots and lots of people saw it and loved it, and everywhere I turned there were people asking me if I'd seen it and telling me how much they loved it. If I really wasn't interested in seeing that movie for whatever reason, I'd get pretty sick and tired of hearing it about it all the time.

[Telle]

I'm pretty much a non-believer, but I don't view this thread as being "annoying the living fuck" out of me. I look at it as reasonable discourse that is meant to stimulate thought, not try to convert.

Well the end of this thread seems to have become "Ask Anxiety questions about Christianity". Maybe that's all he was doing :)

[Mustang]

Now let's say you go and see that movie, then start telling me about it. A few sentences in I say "You know what, I don't really like action movies/chick flicks/dramas/movies with a particular actor/whatever". If you kept going on and on about it after I told you once or twice that I wasn't interested, I'd get pretty annoyed.

In your example... I could tune out the discussion of the movie, I'd be more tired of the "How could you possibly NOT like *insert movie name*

[Telle]

In your example... I could tune out the discussion of the movie, I'd be more tired of the "How could you possibly NOT like *insert movie name*

Well I think I was thinking more along the lines of constant "You just HAVE to go see that movie! I can't believe you haven't seen it yet. How could you possibly not want to go see that movie? It's such a great movie! Here, lemme tell you all about it.."

Sometimes people just don't know when to shut up, whether it's about movies or religion.

[weinstein7]

If God needs to "set the record straight about God", that implies that the Old Testament is faulty or incorrect. If it is, then either God's word is faulty/incorrect or the Old Testament isn't God's word at all? Or did God change his mind?

By extension, if the Old Testament needed to be corrected, how can you be sure that the New one is correct?

My understanding of Islam is that it follows this idea. The Old Testament was handed from God to the Israelites, but it became corrupted, I think in part because the Israelites kept it to themselves instead of trying to share it with the rest of the world. Then came the New Testament, which was in turn corrupted when it Christianity (largely St. Paul the Apostle if I'm not mistaken), adopted so many Hellenistic elements. So finally God came to Mohammed and dictated the Qu'ran as the final corrective. Of course, you still run into the same problem of "how can they be SURE that this is God's final word on the subject," but what can you do?

[Telle]

My understanding of Islam is that it follows this idea. The Old Testament was handed from God to the Israelites, but it became corrupted, I think in part because the Israelites kept it to themselves instead of trying to share it with the rest of the world. Then came the New Testament, which was in turn corrupted when it Christianity (largely St. Paul the Apostle if I'm not mistaken), adopted so many Hellenistic elements. So finally God came to Mohammed and dictated the Qu'ran as the final corrective. Of course, you still run into the same problem of "how can they be SURE that this is God's final word on the subject," but what can you do?

And that also brings up the question of "Why did it take God three tries to figure out that you have to dictate directly to someone in order for people to get it right?"

[weinstein7]

And that also brings up the question of "Why did it take God three tries to figure out that you have to dictate directly to someone in order for people to get it right?"

Well, I think the simple answer there is that since people are fallible, we're forever screwing up God's message.

[DeToxRox]

Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or...or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do...what do they do? They...They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions...by inhibiting our decisions, out of...out of fear of some...some intangible parent figure who...who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says...and says, "Do it--Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you!"

Dogma. Well played.

[Telle]

Well, I think the simple answer there is that since people are fallible, we're forever screwing up God's message.

I meant more along the lines of "Why didn't God know better than to trust people to get it right?" If God is infallible, he should have known from the start that "inspiring" the words that people wrote would give people way too much leeway to mess it up.

[DeToxRox]

If God is so almighty, he shouldn't mind some leg work. All these middle men are jacking shit up for the believers.

[weinstein7]

I meant more along the lines of "Why didn't God know better than to trust people to get it right?" If God is infallible, he should have known from the start that "inspiring" the words that people wrote would give people way too much leeway to mess it up.

Well, according to Jewish tradition, God DID write the Old Testament.

Moreover, one might argue that God wants us to figure it out for ourselves. Anyone can do the right thing when they're explicitly told right from wrong, but the challenge comes when you have to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.

[Telle]

Moreover, one might argue that God wants us to figure it out for ourselves. Anyone can do the right thing when they're explicitly told right from wrong, but the challenge comes when you have to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.

Sooo... God sets up a bunch of rules, doesn't do a good job of telling people what those rules are, and then judges them on whether or not they follow those rules? Somehow that doesn't sound fair.. God is supposed to be fair, right?

[weinstein7]

Well....this varies between religions I think. But I think most religions would hold that God judges you by what is in your heart, rather than by whether you followed this or that rule.

The way I was taught Judaism is that the only rules that REALLY matter are the Ten Commandments. The rest are important, but if you're an otherwise good person who likes the occaisonal pork fried rice, God will let it slide. I hope that's true anyway, 'cause I loves me some lobster.

[Telle]

Well....this varies between religions I think. But I think most religions would hold that God judges you by what is in your heart, rather than by whether you followed this or that rule.

The way I was taught Judaism is that the only rules that REALLY matter are the Ten Commandments. The rest are important, but if you're an otherwise good person who likes the occaisonal pork fried rice, God will let it slide. I hope that's true anyway, 'cause I loves me some lobster.

Oh yeah, it definately depends on the religion. But moreso than that, it depends on how fanatical you are about the religion. I doubt you'd get many fundamentalists agreeing with you that God let's things slide.

[weinstein7]

Oh yeah, it definately depends on the religion. But moreso than that, it depends on how fanatical you are about the religion. I doubt you'd get many fundamentalists agreeing with you that God let's things slide.

Yeah, there's that too. I guess one of the problems of a thread like this is it's tough to explain "Christianity" or "religion" when there are a nearly infinite number of versions of any given religion, many of which are explicitly contradictory.

I was just trying to point out that many interpretations of religions are flexible enough to avoid many of the problems raised in this thread. I think Anxiety was making the same point, although he actually knows what he's talking about, whereas I'm just pulling stuff out of my ass.

[Bubba Wheels]

Oh yeah, it definately depends on the religion. But moreso than that, it depends on how fanatical you are about the religion. I doubt you'd get many fundamentalists agreeing with you that God let's things slide.

Well, the Biblical answer to that is in the old testement (under the law) God was known to look the other way on occassion, but in the new testement (under grace) that is no longer the case.