To all devout Christians

Calibos

gosimeon wrote:

Is the CCC God's word or the utterances of a bunch of old hypocrites sitting in their ivy towers in the Vatican? I can't remember....

Mind you, the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium." Chapter 1, sections 14 to 16 discuss salvation of Catholics and others. An "Assessment of this Council" reads:

"5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."

This os similar to a Bible verse I am trying in vain to remember! Basically, God's law is implanted in all of our hearts and those that never hear the Gospel but still do their utmost to do what is good are saved.
Did Abraham hear the Gospel preached to him? Did Noah? Moses?

I believe that God is fair. If somebody never hears the Word of God and never gets the chance to receive Christ as their saviour, I am sure they are given a chance. I read a piece of scripture about it a while back, in Romans I think. I'll look it up. It seemed to hint that those that have never heard / died before Christ was born are judged on their deeds.

We are told that those who reject Jesus are not saved, not those that do not even get a chance to make up their mind.

Can you read my earlier post on page 6 Gosimeon and answer me how a Christian for instance can in good concience knock on the door of a good person of another faith and give them a chance to reject Christs message when they already have a very good chance of salvation assuming they are good people. You aren't saving souls, you are condemning most good peoples souls who don't convert for you by giving them a chance to reject the message.

I may be mis-interpreting what 'Rejecting the Message' really means though. Can you clarify what rejecting Christs message means. Does it mean 'not converting to your particular brand of Christiantiy' or does it mean, 'rejecting any christian denominations version of Christs Message'. So for instance in the case of a Catholic, when you knock on their door and they choose not to convert to your version of the Message, they are not rejecting Christs message but just your version of it cause they are already a Christian, whereas if you knock on the door of a Buddhists house and he rejects the messsage, he is not only rejecting your version but all versions and thus has truely rejected Christs Message in every sense.

OR are you saying that 'rejecting the message' should not be taken in a fully literal sense and as long as you live a good life you have never really rejected Christ even if you didn't convert for any Christian Missionary at your door.

gosimeon

Calibos wrote:

Can you read my earlier post on page 6 Gosimeon and answer me how a Christian for instance can in good concience knock on the door of a good person of another faith and give them a chance to reject Christs message when they already have a very good chance of salvation assuming they are good people. You aren't saving souls, you are condemning most good peoples souls who don't convert for you by giving them a chance to reject the message.

I may be mis-interpreting what 'Rejecting the Message' really means though. Can you clarify what rejecting Christs message means. Does it mean 'not converting to your particular brand of Christiantiy' or does it mean, 'rejecting any christian denominations version of Christs Message'. So for instance in the case of a Catholic, when you knock on their door and they choose not to convert to your version of the Message, they are not rejecting Christs message but just your version of it cause they are already a Christian, whereas if you knock on the door of a Buddhists house and he rejects the messsage, he is not only rejecting your version but all versions and thus has truely rejected Christs Message in every sense.

OR are you saying that 'rejecting the message' should not be taken in a fully literal sense and as long as you live a good life you have never really rejected Christ even if you didn't convert for any Christian Missionary at your door.

That is boiling it down an awful lot. In Ireland you are surrounded by Christianity. You know what it's all about and freely reject it. It doesn't take you shutting a door on an evangelist to reject Christianity. It's a lifelong decision.

Scofflaw

gosimeon wrote:

That is boiling it down an awful lot. In Ireland you are surrounded by Christianity. You know what it's all about and freely reject it. It doesn't take you shutting a door on an evangelist to reject Christianity. It's a lifelong decision.

Obviously, for the sake of our children, and out children's children, we should work towards the complete secularisation of Irish society...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Calibos

gosimeon wrote:

That is boiling it down an awful lot. In Ireland you are surrounded by Christianity. You know what it's all about and freely reject it. It doesn't take you shutting a door on an evangelist to reject Christianity. It's a lifelong decision.

I am really intrigued by this rejecting Christs Message lark. I find the irony delicious that the most 'Christian' people I know are atheist.

I can just imagine myself utterly suprised when I arive at the pearly gates instead of the Gates of Hell (Once I get over the suprise of there being a heaven or hell after all:D ) and I ask St Peter what gives?

Well Calibos, Most Christians talk the talk but don't walk the walk. You atheists don't talk the talk but generally do walk the walk! Well done, in ya come

Zombrex

gosimeon wrote:

That is boiling it down an awful lot. In Ireland you are surrounded by Christianity. You know what it's all about and freely reject it. It doesn't take you shutting a door on an evangelist to reject Christianity. It's a lifelong decision.

I think his point is that since you claim good people who have not heard the word of Jesus (ie native americans living 4000 years ago) are saved automatically for simply being good, but people who have heard the word of Jesus are not saved if they don't accept Jesus, even if they are good, it would have been better for all of us if Jesus had just never come and we were never given the chance to reject him.

Since I don't believe in God and since this isn't a choice but simply a conclusion (I couldn't believe in God even if I wanted to, which some times I do), if I'm wrong and God does exist I'm going to hell no matter how good I am in this life.

But if Christianity had never come to Ireland, and i had never had to consider if God existed or not since I would not be even aware of such a belief, I would have been saved by default.

I think that is why a lot of Christians say that no actually people who didn't hear Jesus's message weren't saved.

It is a toss up between two ultimately unfair positions.

Calibos

What it boils down to as you put it is this. You start from the assumption that God is good. That God does not punish the innocent. God condemning good people who were born before Jesus or who have never heard of him sounds unfair and seeing as you assume God is good, you rationalise this by saying, 'well obviously God wouldn't condemn those good people'

So you have backed yourself into a corner. Either God only condemns those who reject Christs message explicitly in which case you have to realise you are doing more harm than Good to peoples souls by spreading Christs message and giving good people a chance to reject it.

OR

God isn't as Good/Fair as you think and is prepared to condemn people who haven't heard the message in which case he is not a God worth worshipping.

Zombrex

Calibos wrote:

Either God only condemns those who reject Christs message explicitly in which case you have to realise you are doing more harm than Good to peoples souls by spreading Christs message and giving good people a chance to reject it.

OR

God isn't as Good/Fair as you think and is prepared to condemn people who haven't heard the message in which case he is not a God worth worshipping.

In fairness to the Christians here there is a 3rd option, which posters like Wolfsbane hold to - There are no good people.

All humans are wicked because of Adam's fall (never got a reason why we are all wicked because of Adam's fall, that is seemingly just the way it is) and as such none of us deserve to be saved, we all deserve eternal hell simply by existing in our state of wickedness. Except for God's chosen people the Hewbrews.

But God tired of having just one chosen people and sent Jesus to spread the message so everyone can be saved but only by accepting Jesus.

From an atheist position it is hard to decide which of the 3 options is more distasteful, but being a Christian forum it is only polite to work off the assumption that at least one of them is correct. I will leave it up to the Christians to decide that ..

OfflerCrocGod

Calibos wrote:

So you have backed yourself into a corner. Either God only condemns those who reject Christs message explicitly in which case you have to realise you are doing more harm than Good to peoples souls by spreading Christs message and giving good people a chance to reject it.

OR

God isn't as Good/Fair as you think and is prepared to condemn people who haven't heard the message in which case he is not a God worth worshipping.

OR

God doesn't exist OR if you really don't like that option you can use "original sin" as Wicknight points out.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

In fairness to the Christians here there is a 3rd option, which posters like Wolfsbane hold to - There are no good people.

All humans are wicked because of Adam's fall (never got a reason why we are all wicked because of Adam's fall, that is seemingly just the way it is) and as such none of us deserve to be saved, we all deserve eternal hell simply by existing in our state of wickedness. Except for God's chosen people the Hewbrews.

The Hebrew people were God's chosen, in that they were to be a testimony to God and create such a life that would attract others into the group. Instead the Hebrews looked upon themselves as being better and therefor did not welcome others into their midst.

Wicknight wrote:

But God tired of having just one chosen people and sent Jesus to spread the message so everyone can be saved but only by accepting Jesus.

God tired of His chosen people not living up to their end of the bargain by producing 'fruit' for the kingdom of God. basically they were not being a very good witness to God. (It is hard to do, I do try:) ) Jesus was sent to try and starighten them out. They killed Him instead. Jesus knew this so prepared people with the concept of a faith that was available for anyone who wanted and was also inclusive of anyone. He slao reiterated the idea that God was graciuos and that your sin could be forgiven without having to actually do anything or sacrifice anything.

Wicknight wrote:

From an atheist position it is hard to decide which of the 3 options is more distasteful, but being a Christian forum it is only polite to work off the assumption that at least one of them is correct. I will leave it up to the Christians to decide that ..

I really have trouble with understanding how a God that cares so much for people that He comes down and puts Himself through what He did for the sole purpose of offering you eternal life, is distatsteful. A free gift, distasteful?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The Hebrew people were God's chosen, in that they were to be a testimony to God and create such a life that would attract others into the group. Instead the Hebrews looked upon themselves as being better and therefor did not welcome others into their midst.

But since God knew this would happen it seems a bit strange that He would pick these people to be a testimony to Himself knowing that they in the end wouldn't do this. And while they were failing to do this they killed a lot of innocent people under his order.

That idea, to an atheist, is distasteful.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus knew this so prepared people with the concept of a faith that was available for anyone who wanted and was also inclusive of anyone.

The problem with that is that it only works with people who were aware of Jesus. To a kid growing up in South America at the time he was going straight to hell, no matter how good he was. He was neither God's chosen people, nor was he witness to Jesus' message, and as such being as good as he was would not save him from an eternity of suffering in hell.

That idea, to an atheist, is distasteful.

BrianCalgary wrote:

He slao reiterated the idea that God was graciuos and that your sin could be forgiven without having to actually do anything or sacrifice anything.

The idea that we are sinful in the first place is ultimately distasteful to an atheist, since it is clear from the Bible that we are born sinful only because God wished it to be this way. Him then punishing us for that is distasteful.

I've already been over this with Wolfsbane, who simply switches off when the argument gets to troublesome for him. He simply falls back on the "God is wise, we are not, therefore that is why this does not make sense to you" argument, which frankly isn't good enough, and just sounds like ignorance of his part.

God makes Adam, knowing he will fall. Because Adam does fall, which he was always going to do anyway, God decides not only to punish Adam but to punish all of us for Adam's disobediences. So because of God's decision we are all born sinful. And so because we are all born sinful God gets to punish us when ever he wants and we deserve this because we are all born sinful, because God made us like that.

Firstly it makes no sense with the idea of a loving God. If God loved us so much why did he chose to punish all of us for Adam's mistake?

Secondly it is ultimately unhealthy to constantly be preaching to others that they are just naturally in a state of wickedness and deserving of eternal punishment. It doesn't do very much good and probably why Christians throughout history have inflicted so much misery on themselves (sitting on a rock whipping yourself for 20 years for example) and on others.

That idea, needless to say, is distasteful to an atheist.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I really have trouble with understanding how a God that cares so much for people that He comes down and puts Himself through what He did for the sole purpose of offering you eternal life, is distatsteful.

Well I imagine you would, because you are in the religion and therefore are convinced that everything is great from the inside. Its the view from the outside that makes things appear rather distasteful.

Firstly Jesus only had to come to offer us eternal life because God had already decided that we weren't going to get eternal life. Since God knew all this was going to happen it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to suppose that God was fixing something that had gone wrong before.

Secondly couldn't God have just said "You know what, I think I will give everyone who is good eternal life" I have never got why someone has to "accept Jesus" to be granted eternal life. I mean, you don't even apparently have to be all that good to get this, you just have to accept Jesus.

From an atheist position that makes perfect sense, you tell the followers of the religion that you don't get the reward unless you become a member of the religion, therefore everyone in the religion thinks they are great and special, and can think that everyone not in the religion is ... well ..not great and not special.

But with in the dogma itself that God loves all of us it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. God ultimately has the power to grant anyone He likes eternal life, so why choose to do it only to those who accept Jesus? Why not just give it to anyone who is good, or anyone. Why limit it to those who believe in him?

Ultimately it makes sense that the religion would wish to believe that they are the chosen special, the chosen "saved" and that those others aren't saved, otherwise what would be the point of belonging to the religion in the first place. But that is a distasteful idea to atheists.

Secondly I fail to see why it was necessary for Jesus to be executed for us to get his message that we should follow him. Yes a resurrection is impressive, but then so is moving the planets so they spell out "God is good". If God is going to break the laws of the natural world choosing a violent horrible execution is a rather distasteful way of going about it.

I don't mean to insult your right to believe all this stuff. I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you. But to me it doesn't make any sense, and to be honest all Christian seem to be able to do to try and explain it is give up and say that I must just trust that God is smarter than me. Which isn't an answer, it is simply a recognition that they don't understand it either.

The atheist position is often dismissed by Christians as either being a selfish one (we don't want to have to follow moral rules so we decide to reject God) or one of arrogance (we pretend that we can work out logic flaws in the Christian dogma, also because we don't want to have to follow moral rules and we want to be selfish). This ignores that fact that a lot of atheists, including myself, have very strong moral beliefs. This is often why we come into conflict with ideas such as Christianity, because the religion asks you to blindly accept things I consider morally distasteful, for a reward of an after life.

Ultimately the Christian beliefs are distasteful to an atheist like myself. I don't like the idea that God would create everyone as sinful and then punish everyone for being sinful. I don't like the idea that Christians think of themselves and others as wicked evil creatures deserving of punishment from above. I especially don't like that Christians seem to not notice the paradox of this situation, that God decides that we are to be made wicked, and yet also decides to punish us for this.

I don't like using this analogy a lot, because it is a bit unfair on most Christians and not particularly accurate, but it is hard not to think of the battered wife who rationalizes that they are at fault, and that they provoke the violent response from the husband, when in fact what ever they do they don't deserve to be beaten up.

I am happy to explain the real atheist position to you, explain why atheists actually have trouble with Christianity, and I am just as happy if you ignore it if you wish

Barnabas

I'm not so sure that the gift of eternal life is clear on this thread. Reading some (not all admittedly) posts I'm getting the impression that people think eternal life is ours by right and it was taken away from us because of sin. But a distinction needs to be made between living eternally (i.e. not dying) and what Christianity means by eternal life. Eternal life means participating in the life of the Trinity. It is what has classically been called 'Divinisation' - made like unto God - meaning made into sons and daughters of God in the one Son Jesus Christ. The first (living eternally) is ours by nature - God made us so that we will live forever - death is a result of the fall. The second (Eternal Life) can only be received as pure gift since we have no right to it. Not because God doesn't like us now that we have sinned but because it is so far beyond what we, as creatures, can expect. So while Christ comes to heal us of our sins there is also another aspect which is that of raising us to the dignity of sons and daughters of God. This second aspect of salvation is often passed over in an almost exclusive focus on forgiveness of sin. The forgiveness of sin allows the divinisation to take place. The grace we receive isagrace that heals and a grace that elevates. the first is, in a sense, restoration; the second is re-creation.

On another point: The Christian's relationship with Christ, his life in the Spirit, his day to day interaction with God is something that should give him an immnese sense of joy and comfort. His friendship with Christ is central to his whole life and how he lives it (or at least it should be!). Like anyone else the Christian's experience of Christ is too good to be kept to himself, it is meant to be shared and there is a fulfilment in its being shared (I'm sure all of us have had the experience of introducing two friends of ours who were strangers to each other for the first time - why do we do this and why do we hope they will hit it off? Because each are an important part of our life and each reveals something about us to the otherand we want them to share that something). With Christianity its a bit like that when it comes to its relationship with Christ. We don't preach Christ so that if someone is lost then they can only be themselves to blame - they were introduced to Christ! We preach Christ, we introduce others to him so that he can transform their lives here and now as well as after this life, in the same way as he has transformed ours. While it is true that to whom much is given much more is expected, very often we tend to forget how much has actually been given already here and now.

Your friendly neighbourhood Christian

Barnabas