A Question for the Christians herein.

I’d like to engage in a little theological thought experiment. My purpose here is not so much to spur a debate – rather I’m interested in your various opinions and the reasons behind them. Call it research related to an larger project I’m working on.

I’m going to set out a virtually impossible fact pattern, but I need you to accept it as given. “That could never happen!” won’t be a useful response. I’m a little doubtful over whether this should be posted here or in GQ, so if it needs to be moved, Mods, Do yer stuff. I chose this forum for the overall quality of the posters (flattery’ll get you everywhere!).

Ready? Here we go…

Once there was a missionary working in the remotest depths of the Amazon rainforest. While there he found five villages which were utterly isolated from the rest of the world. He went from village to village, spending a year in each. The missionary was honest, kind and good. As a result of his forthrightness and good character, all of the villagers in each of the villages came to trust the missionary implicitly.

When the missionary left each village he told the villagers that he would give them the secret to eternal life in heaven. The villagers were intrigued. It was in a book, which he would translate into their language and have delivered to them. He told them to expect it to drop from the sky.

All the villagers in each of the villages waited patiently for the book. The missionary, after taking exact coordinates of the five villages with his GPS receiver, returned to “civilization”. He translated the New Testament, then made arrangements to have five batches of the translations printed. Then he chartered a cargo plane to drop the translations over the five villages. This undertaking completely tapped the funds of the missionary organization which had sponsored him, so he was never able to return to the Amazon.

Each of the villages found the translated Testaments, read them, took them to heart, believed them and did their utmost to live according to the wisdom of the Good Book.

Unfortunately, as a result of translation difficulties, printers’ errors, sabotage and other unspecified deus ex machina, some of the testaments contained errors and omissions – some minor, some egregious.

The Bibles dropped on the first village, Acedelphia were entirely correct.

The Testaments in the second village, Bobopolis, were almost right, but Jesus’s name was mistranslated throughout as “Howard”. They contained no other errors or omissions.

In Caer Bannog all reference to Jesus’s divinity had been left out. There was no reference to Jesus being the Son of God, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, nor any other indication that Jesus was anything other than a normal human. However, all of Jesus’s moral and ethical teachings, including the parables, the Beatitudes and “Love thy neighbor as thyself” were left intact.

The Testaments dropped in Dee Sicks were just the opposite. They contained only the portions of the Bible which discussed Jesus’s divinity, but none of his moral and ethical teachings.

Finally, in Eggton the Testaments contained accurate text about Jesus’s divinity. However, the moral and ethical teachings were wildly inaccurate, including such mistranslations as: “Love thy neighbor as thy dentist, but less than thyself,”; “It is as easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven as it is to drop a coconut on your foot” and “Let he who has sinned the most cast the first stone.”

Each of the villages read, believed and followed the version of the New Testament they received. They had no interaction with each other and no other source of information about Christianity, Jesus or his teachings.

Here’s the question:

Which villagers are Christians? Which will go to heaven? Why or why not?

It would also be helpful if you’d provide some information on your religious background and current practice. This is not absolutely necessary, but if you feel like sharing…

Thanks for bearing with me and for your input.

Difficult question to answer, but personally, I think that A, B and C got the best deal, hard to say more than that.

‘Howard’ is actually the proper name for God the Father…

Our Father in Heaven
Howard be thy name…

The only ones who survive the resulting recriminations and waves of burnings are christians, if the fun-and-games of the 4th century are anything to go by…
Cheers.

My opinions:

Those who love — that is, those who facilitate goodness — are Christians, including those who never saw any of the books, never heard of the missionary, and don’t even believe that God exists. They are already “in heaven”.

Why? Because Jesus teaches that His disciples are those who love one another, and because He teaches that heaven is not over here or over there, but within us.

To my mind, A and B are equivalent - debating names is merely semantics… (and I like Mangetout’s point :))

C and D present only half of the picture each, and neither (to my mind) is complete without the other - my hope would be that understanding the one would lead one to deduce the other, or at the very least, to bocome aware that there was part of the picture missing and wonder what it was. IOW if you can see that God loved people enough to come to earth in the form of a human in order to die for the sins of the world, then “love your neighbour” should follow automatically. Certainly, the question would be asked: “What impact does this teaching have on the way I live my day-to-day life?”. Going the other way is a greater leap - there are plenty of moral, ethical people upon whom Jesus’ divinity makes no impact. The question that would bug them (I think) is how anyone could be expected to live up to the high standards that Jesus set in his moral and ethical teaching and they would look for more. Since I believe that God is able to communicate with people outside of the Bible, I believe that if the people look for answers, God will meet with them.

E is the most interesting - again, I would hope that the residents would pick up the internal contradictions and reject the book, especially in light of the example set by the missionary, and try to live by the moral code that he demonstrated during his time amongst them. Ditto for God’s communication…

Those that discover/know God - no matter the shortcomings of the book that they have been given. People can come to know God/Jesus/Howard without needing the Bible at all. People can read the Bible until they can quote it backwards in the original Sanscrit and never meet (or understand/know) the author.

Grim

Those who read of Jesus’ divinity but not the “moral teachings”, will still get to Heaven, as once you are “saved” and know Him, He will give you the knowledge of what is moral and what is not.

What if there were a sixth village, same as the other five. Because the missionary funds ran out, the NT was never translated or delivered to the sixth village. While waiting patiently for the books to fall from the sky, the elders of the village decided to document the wonderful example of goodness which the missionary demonstrated. They also documented the words of the missionary and the promise that the Good Book would fall from the sky in due time.

Over time, the villagers began to worship the missionary as a prophet and a religion was born. After many generations the villagers continue to worship the missionary and look forward to the day when the Good Book will be delivered unto them.

What is the fate of these villagers? Heaven or not?

Those who love: heaven. Those who don’t: not.

Cool thread. Very interesting. What makes a Christian? Belief that Jesus is God? Belief that Jesus’ teachings are definitively moral? Both? And is the definition of a Christian different than those who have sufficient belief regarding the Christian path to salvation.

((My background: born Catholic, atheist for a little over a decade; now returned to Catholicism.))

In summary, we have the following:
A) Divinity, Morals, Jesus’ Name
B) Divinity, Morals
C) Morals
D) Divinity
E) Divinity, Non-Biblical Morals

They all have a claim to calling themselves Christian if they want to. I tend to use an open definition. If a group claims to believe in either the divinity of Christ or the definitive moral character of his teachings, and they want to call themselves Christian, they can as far as I am concerned.

I will tell you, however, that many if not most Christians will disagree with me on this point. Most Christians are much more serious about defending the integrity of the term Christian. I for one am quite happy with a broad definition for “Christian”, but with well-defended denominational terms. For example, I might have more to say if you asked me whether they were Catholic.

A and B (morals and divinity) definitely. I believe they have sufficient tools necessary for salvation. The name of Jesus means nothing. Heck, no one called Jesus “Immanuel” while he was alive but that didn’t stop anyone from following Him.

C (morals) is the crux of Christianity, in my view. They had the morals, and that is enough. Even the Bible says this:

Thus, knowledge of Jesus is not required. Good living is. Those who knew had no personal knowledge of God, and yet lived his message, were saved.

D and E (divinity, but no morals or incorrect morals) are more problematic. I will not say they cannot be saved. I can never say that about anyone. I don’t think they have been given sufficient Christian tools (ideas) which, if believed and followed (as we assume here), gain automatic Christian salvation. Nonetheless, they may be saved if they discover enough truth independently (e.g., if they treat others well–see above quote).

Belief in a divine Jesus is not sufficient for salvation within my brand of Christianity. (Can anyone say, “Satan?”) You can know of Jesus the historical person, and believe the Christian God exists, and still be a sinner. Sin removes you from God, and can bar your entrance into heaven, regardless of your belief regarding God’s existence.

However, I would not go so far as to say they that D and E are going to Hell. The Catholic Church teaches that God does take into account the state of mind of a sinner. A mortal sin (which would send you to Hell) requires knowledge that the sin is mortal and a conscious choice to sin given that knowledge. Absence of knowledge, through no fault of one’s own, is not held against one. Each individual may find some truth which allows that individual salvation. The Catholic Church recognizes that the search for Truth is a unifying characteristic of humanity:

D and E may yet find their salvation in their own religion found “in the shadows” of Christian revelation.

Crap. Libertarian summarized my post before I even posted it.

Soooo, all atheists who have denied Jesus as God are saved because they have read of Jesus’ divinity??? That is an interesting theology.

How does one “know Jesus” if one does not know Jesus’ moral teachings?

Ok, I am not a great debater. I’m not eloquent and have a hard time putting my creed into words, so please forgive me if this comes out wrong or offensive. And please understand if I don’t come out swinging because I’ll have a hard time defending myself.

Lib, I admire your posts, and I know you can debate me under the table. I also know more people will listen to your opinion than mine. I’m ready to accept that. But isn’t your “love=Christian” a bit simplistic? I know plenty of atheists and a few pagans who are the nicest people around, love their neighbors, help the unfortunate. But that’s doesn’t get you to heaven. “For by faith are you saved thru grace, not of works, lest any man should boast.”

A Christian is one who acknowledges the fact that s/he is a sinner, is repentant of that fact, and accepts that the Son of God (or Howard) was sent as a sacrifice in place of the sinner. A “good” Christian then attempts to live or continue to live following the groundwork laid down by Jesus as an example to him. (I put “good” in quotes, because one can still be a Christian and fail miserably at following in those footsteps. I struggle with it every day.)

How then do you say that “if you love, you are automatically a Christian”? Do Jews, Muslems, etc. not love? And yet they wouldn’t be considered Christian by any means.

Again, Lib, not an attack, but I really need some clarification here. Thanks

Oh and to answer the puzzler, definitely A and B. C would produce many good people indeed and an Heaven on Earth but not eternal life. D is possible considering they were told this would be how you get to Heaven, but they’d probably be too confused on how to apply the knowledge. E I think is right out since it’s like shredding a dictionary and telling them to put it together for the answer.

Max Carnage, the whole “God=love” (according to me) implies that, if one has love within one’s self, than one has God within one’s self.

That being said, I think that acknowledgement of one’s own shortfallings is essential. After all, unless one is aware of a disease, one will never take the medicine.

Excellent point. The more “popular” view these days apparently is that a person can be good enough, or be loving enough, to work their own way into heaven. However, as we learn in Isaiah 64:6 “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.”

Then, in one of the most famous verses in the Bible Jesus himself says:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

According to Lib they are in Heaven. I concur with that.

My question rsa "Are your villagers waiting for a Second Coming?

This is a legalistic non-question. God will save those whom He has seen as striving as best they can towards Him. As Jesus Christ in scripture states:

“And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)

In other words, all will be judged according to what was understood. For those who knew no better, the results will be less severe. Otherwise, this would mean that mere humans are MORE POWERFUL than God. If these villagers were damned because they had been given faulty Scripture, then the mere men who produced and delivered that Scripture were so powerful that, by their omission, THEY damned those villages and THEY took the decision out of God’s hands.

The Christians are those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ. That’s all that is needed there. Jesus’ name is irrelevant, so the first and second villages have no problem being Christians.

The third village does not know Jesus as God’s son, so their concept of Jesus is only of a teacher/rabi. This village views Jesus in a similar manor to some other religions, eg Jews or Muslems view of Jesus. So techniquely they are not Christians.

The fourth village is tricky, since Jesus is divine to them. They would be Christians techniquely, but they would not understand the significance of Jesus’ life on Earth.

The fifth village would be in a similar situation to the fourth, but worse since moral guidance is incorrect.

As for which would go to Heaven, none of us knows. Being Christian does not create a free path to Heaven. We only get there by the Grace of God. If God grants his Grace to any of the villagers, then they will go to Heaven.

The error in the premise is that the book provides the answer…

The book assists, but the Holy Spirit provides the answer… He is the help the Jesus promised he would send… a Bible is just tool to help with that…

Peace.

Sound teaching from a Christian perspective, but unfortunately evidently incorrect. I could refute you giving examples known to both of us, but I think I don’t need to. :wink:

I would say that all five villages may contain people who will make the grade, and each will have those who fail. Villages A and B having the easiest time with correct teachings(The name of Christ is less important than most would think.)

Villages D and E relying solely on the divinity of Christ will have a hard time, but I agree with Vanilla on the point of the spirit. If they strived enough, many would probably find the way.

In village C, I would assume that the lack of Jesus’ divinity may prove difficult. However, if there is mention of God I think it would certainly be possible. Love God and love thy neighbor would both presumably still remain, and that’s the key, IMHO.

As to being Christians, I think all villages lay equal claim, in much the same way the Catholics, Presbyterians, Mormons and JW’s do. All have different beliefs, but they all follow the same Lord.

In essence, I agree with Libertarian, but I’m too opinionated to simply agree. :wink: