Happy Chanukah!

[bullmoose88]

Just a couple of points/questions.  What Jmfcst says, in and of itself, makes sense, but to me, its pretty troubling in that one who has never heard or had the opportunity to hear the good news is condemned to eternal damnnation.  Maybe its just me, but I have a hard time squaring the plain words of the Bible with my view of a fair, loving and just God (as portrayed in the New Testament) with the literal words-if you do not believe, then you will suffer hell.

Assuming for arguments sake that we're going to, as countless generations have, weigh Paul's views so heavily (because of course they're in the NT)...that may be an issue for another day...I still find it hard to believe that 1) say for instance native americans living at the time of Christ up to the preaching of the Gospel in the new world, would have been able to know that the Son of God was born into the family of a meager carpenter in some backwater Roman province and that his crucifixtion was the saving of the world.  Those people have, in my mind, no notice that such moments have occurred and to judge them equally with those who have had the actual opportunity to believe in Christ, and still reject it seems, well...unreasonable.

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

[bullmoose88]

But as you've said, the words of Paul lean in your favor, as do the words of the NT requring belief (which to me is belief in or knowing rejection of, but another issue).

Sounds to me like the world was in a state of comdemnation and in need of salvation; therefore God, out of his love of the world, gave his son so that the world could be saved through Jesus.  Whoever believes it saved, but whoever does not believe remains condemned because they did not latch onto God's salvation.

Sounds pretty simple to me.

I wish.

I mean, assuming God is loving etc, why would he require those who lived on the other side of the world to believe in a man they have never heard of, never heard prophecy about, in a place they don't even know exists, to suffer and die at the hands of a man they've never heard of and in a way they probably don't know about...not to mention a history changing event at a random tomb thousands upon thousands of miles away

I realize the text of the Bible essentially says, believe and you're saved, do not believe and you're condemned...what does it mean to not believe in this circumstance...you could (and it seems you and a great deal of Christians agree) take do not believe to encompass both those who have rejected the truth, and those who have (either through inaction or inability to believe) failed to form (or even realize there was a thing to be believed) a belief. 

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

[bullmoose88]

To throw those who are unable to believe (say mental incapacity) or those who have failed to believe (because they did not or couldn't know of the existence of such a choice) with those who have rejected the truth...still seems inconsistent with the premise of a loving, fair, and just God.

Notice that Paul and Silas did NOT respond:  "Well, you can do one of two things - a) go crawl under a rock and remain ignorant and you'll be saved, or b) believe in Jesus Christ and you'll be saved."

What you've described here, is willful ignorance, I haven't argued that willful ignorance is a permissible path to salvation...I don't think JS has either (but I can't speak for him).

What I'm wondering about are those who haven't acted like osteriches and hidden, but those who have never had the opportunity (because missionaries hadnt arrived) and could not have had constructive knowledge (should have known if not for ignorance).