Did the Native North & South Americans go to Heaven?

Great Debates
1

Before North & South American was reached by the Western world, the two continents didn’t know anything about Christianity or the Christian God. They had their own deities and religions.

Before those people were told of God, what happened to them when they died? It’s not their fault that they didn’t know anything about God or Jesus; they were isolated from that part of the world for thousands of years. The Internet, FedEx, the telephone and Pony Express didn’t exist back then, so there was no way that they could have know what was going on in Jerusalem.

So, what did God do for those thousands (if not millions) of people when they died? Did they go to Hell because they knew nothing of God? And if so, why did they go to Hell, when it wasn’t their fault?

2

It depends on which faith you follow and what specific beliefs you hold.

Limiting ourselves purely to Christian belief (based on the implication of the question, not because lots of others don’t have widely varying views), the majority of “mainstream” Christian denominations would hold that God judged each person individually, based on Matthew 25: 31-46 and Romans 2, with the salvific act of Jesus extending to all humanity for all time. Catholics, Orthodox, the various Anglican communions, and several (not all) Lutheran groups follow this line of thought.) Quite a few other groups look at various passages that speak of salvation “only” through Jesus and claim that they were all damned. (Calvinist-based groups and a number of Fundamentalists would tend to hold this idea.) And, of course, there are those who look on Christianity as so much foolishness and think the whole question is absurd.

3

as i understand it,

every native american tribe has it’s own version of creation, and most consider themselves to be “the” people
Most i have heard of are somehow based around living in harmony with nature, and when they die (depending on the type of death) float off into some sort of oblivion. (mostly based on experience with the pueblo peoples of the southwest, though)

take the navajo for instance (with apologies to the dine for any errors i make here)

the word in navajo for navajo means “the people” the central philosophy is that “the people” are to live in “the land” marked by a triangle of sacred mountains. The navajo aim is to “walk in beauty” which means to be in harmony with nature and all in the world (simplified)
if a navajo dies a natural death at a ripe old age, his soul is put to rest.
if a navajo dies somehow in disharmony with nature, his soul, spirit then haunts the living, it is for this reason that they don’t speak the name of the dead, lest the spirit come and haunt them.

I’ve also secretly chuckled at the notion that god might just reincarnate such people, and put them in a christian environment the next time around.

anyone know about the maya, inca, toltec religions?

4

**Fatdave wrote:

So, what did God do for those thousands (if not millions) of people when they died? Did they go to Hell because they knew nothing of God? And if so, why did they go to Hell, when it wasn’t their fault?**

(The J/C/I)God didn’t do anything with them. Since they’re not Christian (or Jewish or Moslem) they’re not bound by the rules of that religion. They went off to whatever version of the afterlife they believe in.

5

It kind of sounds like you’re talking about a “create your own reality” situation. Is that correct? Of course, I don’t share that belief but I know there are many who do. Being a Christian I believe that no one goes to heaven but through Christ. Also, I don’t think hell is the same for everyone. Those who never knew will no doubt have far less punishment than those who did know. Of course, then there are those who believe that everyone is automatically saved. Anyway, I really can’t see this “create your own reality” thing. What’s true is true no matter if no one believes it and you can’t make something to be so just because you believe it to be so. Even though for many years, people were sure the world was flat, it didn’t change the fact it was round.

6

For Catholics, at least, the answer turns on how you interpret the traditional maxim “No salvation outside the Church.” Generally, it’s been interpreted as requiring baptism as a precondition of entry into Paradise.

Enormous debate has ensued over what “baptism” means, though. The notion that there existed just persons who acted in accordance with the Commandmants of the Church but, for whatever reason, didn’t get a chance to be physically baptized with water, gave rise to the notions of “baptism by fire” (i.e., a martyr’s being deemed to be baptized by virtue of his suffering for Christian principles), and “baptism by desire” (the just man who in his heart, albeit perhaps inarticulately, acts in accordance with the Gospel and accepts or would be open to accepting God/Jesus as Savior, but has been denied this chance by accident of where/when he was born, etc.).

You can find a ton of disputation on these topics by searching “baptism by desire” (or the alternative term used for this doctrine, the “good heathen” principle – religious apologetics of olden days being less than hypersensitive in their references to non-Church-members). Essentially the debate was/is about how far baptism by desire can stretch. Optimists/liberals would have it be pretty elastic – from the “Pelagian heresy” onward, they’ve struggled against the orthodoxy to recognize a broad range of opportunities to accept/gain salvation without having much to do with the Church or Church doctrine. Traditionalists want to keep this tendency in check, arguing that taken to an extreme, it negates the importance of the “one true faith” by positing that anyone who’s more or less a good guy, according to his own lights, can get salvation on equal terms with those who receive the sacraments, follow the Commandmants, and participate in the life of the “one, holy, catholic [i.e., universal] and apostolic Church.” (To the extent you believe the orthodox view is sincere, it goes a ways to explaining the oft-criticized emphasis on conversion/proselytizing/missionary activity – a sincere Christian of the traditional view would find himself dismayed by the prospect of far off folk not having equal access to the salvific opportunities of the faith, and could not console himself that the “good heathen” would get a free pass on Judgment Day).

There are a lot of paradoxes here. For instance, if you adopt a pro-baptism-by-desire view, you can find yourself confronting circumstances in which an unbaptized “heathen” might be better off never hearing about the Church – e.g., while a pre-Columbian Indian can’t very well be blamed for not accepting a Christianity he didn’t know about (and instead should be judged on, say, his general conduct), once a culture’s exposed to the surpassing truths of Christianity, there’s no excuse for not availing of the opportunity of explicitly embracing them through physical baptism – and indeed, having the opportunity and rejecting it (say, Muslims) leaves you worse off (a sort of almost heretic) than never having it but achieving it by desire (say, some undiscovered tribe in the Phillipines).

This is a big topic, unfortunately (but perhaps inevitably) polarized (at least in Catholic history, and I’d imagine in other Christian denomination) by politics and factionalism. And this doesn’t even touch on the Mormon beliefs about how souls from olden (pre J. Smith days) can or can’t retroactively gain salvation – a big issue for them, as I understand it.

Here’s what the Catholic Catechism had to say on the subject (which I (no theologian) interpret as embracing a baptism by desire “loophole” but trying to limit it to those who, apart from the accident of non-baptism, believe and act in full accordance with Catholic principles): “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

7

**His4Ever wrote:

It kind of sounds like you’re talking about a “create your own reality” situation. Is that correct? Of course, I don’t share that belief but I know there are many who do. Being a Christian I believe that no one goes to heaven but through Christ. Also, I don’t think hell is the same for everyone. Those who never knew will no doubt have far less punishment than those who did know. Of course, then there are those who believe that everyone is automatically saved. Anyway, I really can’t see this “create your own reality” thing. What’s true is true no matter if no one believes it and you can’t make something to be so just because you believe it to be so. Even though for many years, people were sure the world was flat, it didn’t change the fact it was round.**

No, this isn’t about creating one’s own reality.

When it comes down to it, it’s more about philosophical questions under a polytheistic system vs. a monotheistic system. Under monotheism, you end up with the sort of conundrums posed by the OP and wondering if good and moral people such as Gandi would end up in Hell or whatever form of punishment there is for non-believers/followers simply because he didn’t follow the “right” religion. If true, this turns the J/C/I God into the Divine Weasel.

Polytheism solves the problem by say that whatever afterlife a person goes to is dictated by the religious/moral code they followed whilst on earth. Consider this analogy: you’re a US citizen. You’ve never traveled outside the country. Now, whilst living here you do something (repeatedly) that against the law in a place like France. Would the French authorities have the right to come over here and arrest you? Of course, the answer is no.

The same with Christianity and members of other religions. Christianity and its God have no right to hold members of other religions up to its moral/religious standards.

That’s why, when non-Christians die or pass onto the afterlife, they don’t end up going to whatever version of the Christian afterlife is.

8

Actually, the discussions over “baptism of desire” have pretty well been settled in its favor. Looking at the section of the Catechism that deals with the Church, itself, we find a series of declarations from paragraph 832 through 848 (about half-way down the page) that clearly indicate that membership in the church is not a requirement for salvation:

9

All good legislators and contract writers know that you just have got to include an escape clause for exigencies.

10

So, if I understand this line of thinking correctly, everyone who has heard the Christian message has to accept Jesus as their savior in order to get to heaven, but others got to heaven if they lived a “good” life?

According to current mainstream Christian doctrine, what happens to those people who hear the Christian message, don’t accept Jesus as their personal savior, yet lead a “good” life?

(I know what the church I grew up in believed… these unfortunates go straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200… if you didn’t possess the “personal savior” ticket, you were doomed.)

Hmmm. As I re-read this, I guess the real question I’m asking is “what is the current Christian thinking regarding the criteria to be admitted to the Christian Heaven?” (this is close enough to the OP that I’ve decided not to open yet another “God-thread”)

11

I read on some site by a M.J.Agee that God gave America to the europeans because the natives were worshipping strange gods.
?

12

His4Ever- would you please e mail me?

13

But they will get some punishment? What for? Being born on the wrong continent?

14

Tomndeb/David: Would you agree there is still some tension/open questions between more orthodox/more liberal R.C. thinking as to how elastic “desire” can be? It’s probably exaggerating to say that an extreme interpretation of baptism by desire could begin to sound like “If it feels good, do it” – but how (if at all) have the canonical/non-canonical authorities attempted to create standards for what types of behavior are (or are not) sufficiently good and righteous for the “good heathen” to qualify as saved by desire? How have they dealt with the allegations (which I’m sure would arise) that applying baptism by desire to, say, persons who are nice folk but enthusiastic adherents of a polytheistic creed is at odds with the 1st/2nd Commandmants?

Algernon touches on the paradox I identified – the fact that a heathen who never hears the Gospel might be better off than a rejectionist who hears and says thumbs down. I strongly suspect that there is some wiggle room here based on Section 847’s reference to those who “through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church.” Especially in a world in which a numerical super-majority of people are likely at least aware of the existence of the Catholic Church and its some of its basic doctrines, but billions do not accept it, I would imagine a liberal Catholic thinker would argue that to “know” Christ in this context means something more than simply having heard of the guy, or even having heard the basic Church doctrines from a missionary (in the extreme, I can see this argument being stretched to say that anyone who isn’t a member of the Church is self-evidently someone who (“through no fault of his own”) hasn’t been able to recognize and accept (“know”) the wisdom and benefits of the creed, and so is ipso facto included in the escape clause).

I’d think the tension on how broad the loophole is here would be compounded by the simultaneous modern trends toward: (a) bourgeois squeamishness about declaring anyone non-saved; and (b) better global communication/travel/education/literacy, under which there is a larger and larger group of people who’ve had fairly extensive opportunity to join up with the Church, and have advisedly decided not to do so (I seem to remember, but can’t track down, a (apocryphal/garbled?) quote by Julian the Apostate to the effect “I have read it, I understand it, and I reject it”), making for a somewhat tougher sell on the “through no fault of their own . . . do not know” clause.

15

No. The “everyone who has heard” understanding is in accord with some groups (who will cut those who have never heard some slack), but the general feeling among the more mainstream groups (such as the Catholic Catechism quoted and linked) is that “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” Knowing in this context, is not the same as simply hearing a proclamation, but actually coming to understand the Gospel message.

I will not claim that there is unanimity of opinion on the subject. As Huerta88 pointed out, there is certainly some tension between those who believe that it is God’s will that all (who do not reject Him) be saved and those who believe that people have to make some affirmative act in order to accept salvation.

Basically, we realy don’t know who God chooses to save or damn. We know the rules for those of us who have understood and accepted the message, but when we project our rules onto others, we are wandering into speculation. (There are those, as noted, who take the phrase “no one come to the Father except I lead them” to mean that one has to personally come to a belief in Jesus. There are others who take that phrase to mean that through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus has sent his spirit into the world to save all people and that without that act no one would be saved.)

16

Huerta88, I posted without previewing and with, my slow typing and slow connection, had not seen your post of 10:04.

I certainly agree that the tension continues regarding what constitutes a baptism of desire. I just think that the group that would have extended it only (for example) to catechumens who died before baptism has lost that battle. The catechism cannot be talking about salvation for Jews, Muslims, and others without some principle of baptism by desire.

17

Algernon asked:
According to current mainstream Christian doctrine, what happens to those people who hear the Christian message, don’t accept Jesus as their personal savior, yet lead a “good” life?

There would be a case for arguing that they are alright, according to one of Jesus’ more famous parables Luke 15 3-7 (Emphasis mine)

Having said that, you’d have to be pretty sure of your own righteousness to trust in it alone to get you past Judgement Day (if you believe in that sort of thing)

Grim

18

Tom –

Your “we really don’t know who” is saved or damned position is certainly in accord with what I’ve seen of modern Catholic practice (probably true of the more assimilated branches of mainstream protestantism), which seems to back away from attempting to separate the sheep from the goats/wheat from chaff in any definitive way (which I suspect is supported in equal parts by a sophisticated application of the Biblical and canonical admonitions that the salvation-judging process is not for mortals, and the aforementioned middle class discomfort with talking about unpleasant subjects like neighbors/family members/other religionists being left out in the cold on the last day). Events of the past year or so make apparent some of the practical advantages (not that that’s supposed to be how we judge religion, but . . .) of abstaining on the question of whether those who don’t buy our religion’s party line are damned/fair game for jihad/whatever.

Is there any bright line analytic category for what category, if anyone, <can> be deemed definitely <out> on the salvation question under the CCC, though? Julian the Apostate (assuming I quoted him correctly)? Is an affirmative and deliberate act of rejection necessary to place the “heathen” outside the baptism by desire loophole? What degree of “knowing” would a non-Church-member have to attain before his affirmative rejection was deemed to nullify his chances? If we take the view that the Church “rules [that we know are] for those who have understood and accepted the message,” is this tantamount to saying that the only class of people we definitively <know> won’t be saved are the heretics or ineffectual/lapsed Catholics (another variant of the “you’re better off staying a heathen” paradox?)? If Church members and non-members have (potentially) equal access to salvific opportunities, but the members will be held to higher standards because they “ought to know better,” isn’t becoming a member a sucker bet (I think I know the answer here, about your life will be more grace-filled if you act in full accordance with the Gospel than if you’re a good heathen, so you’re a net winner still – etc.?)? What does one who has had the meaningful opportunity to “know” the truth have to do to forfeit his salvation?

Sorry for the barrage of questions – don’t mean to set you up as Defender Of Faith; more interested in the state of debate/rationalizations that have been put forward, and suspect you’re better read on these points than I.

Monotheism solves a lot of logical problems with polytheism (structually; I’m not opining here on substance) but creates other logical/fairness problems. Maybe another way of looking at it is that stretching baptism by desire to its logical limits begins to look a lot like henotheism, not monotheism, which I can understand traditionalists viewing as non-negotiable.

19

Please His4ever do not ever have any children. (I assume you don’t for the moment). It is certain that your children will be taught everything you know about Christ, and will have no excuse when they do not truly accept him or reject him before they pass away from this life. Unless you can be absolutely certain that your parenting skills will prevail, you just might be faced with the prospect of singing in the heavenly choir trying to drown out the screams of your children down below forever and ever and ever and ever. And because you’ve taught them well, their screams will be the loudest. Oh what a lovely concept of our blessed Savior you have.

You do realize of course that everyone, everyone, will accept Christ eventually. You’ve even quoted Paul’s letter to the Phillipians on this very point in the past.

20

Ouch. But there’s the paradox.