The fact of the matter is that the Bible just simply doesn’t say very much at all about this particular question. There is very clearly a teaching in Christianity that all of humanity sins and comes under the judgment of sin. And there is also very clearly a teaching in Christianity that there is absolutely no chance whatever of any of us ever meriting salvation by virtue of our own righteousness. It’s – admittedly – not a rosy picture on its face for those who are not Christians. But we simply are not told in any explicit fashion how God will apply the teachings that are clear to the cases of people who have never heard.
Here’s a really interesting article about how some Christians have tried to fill in the gaps with regard to this question, more-or-less:
Just the first part, titled “Will all be Saved?” Conjectural. But perhaps it will be comforting. Or enlightening. Or something.
I would just like to preface this with the fact that I am not a Christian. Dante deals with this very subject in the Divine Comedy. When Dante visits Hell, the first circle he visits is for virtuous pagans. There he meets Homer, Ovid, and the like. They led great lives, and since Christ was not born they could not possibly believe. The first circle of Hell is called limbo. Here there was no physical punishment, just the mental anguish of knowing the truth and being part of it. According to Dante only circles 2-9 and the vestibule were where punishment took place.
So now we’re back to my orignal post in this thread. What of the people who are told of the Word of God by a poor public speaker who is horribly unconvincing in his arguments? A group of people who were perfectly safe are now damned because they were unfortunate enough to be told about the Word of God by an idiot.
Jesus is the word of God.[sup]1[/sup] Not the Bible. Jesus.
The relevant moral decision is whether you accept or reject Him. Not what someone says of Him. Not what is written of Him. Him. And He will greet you at some point in your existence, if He hasn’t already. He will reach out to embrace you and tell you He loves you. You will make your decision at that point. He won’t love you any less if you decide to run away.
The thing is that we’ve all already made our decision long before we see Him. If we have treasured love, then we will treasure Him because that’s what He is. If we have treasured something else, then we will not consider Him to be what we’re looking for. And God grants to each of us whatever we seek.
I think you’re missing my point. My point about the whole love thing is that it is not something you can really convince someone of just through logical debate. If the missionary is effective than he will be able to touch people through his actions, respect and love. It won’t happen through his speaking ability. If the missionary fails to give a proper example of love and respect then that person still hasn’t truly heard the Word of God.
For my next argument, I’m going to assume that God exists and there is an afterlife, since you do that in your argument. God also plays a part in the showing of love. God will speak to the person through the missionary. In essence, God will touch the other person with his (God’s) love. If the other person rejects this love and the message of love then that’s when they are in trouble. I know I’m not exactly being clear here, and I apologize.
based on personal notions of fair play. The rules common to decent people everywhere, in all societies, are very few. Abhorrence of murder. A general live-and-let-live attitude. Certainly not subtleties of religious belief or even the same concept of the divine. Everyone everywhere knows when they’re injuring someone’s person or property; we know rape, robbery, and theft are wrong in and of themselves – what Catholics call “malum in se.” But other things aren’t so obviously wrong; or in human law, it’s not obvious why activities should be illegal if they don’t involve violent coercion, e.g. drug use, this or that form of consensual sex, walking about naked, driving at a certain speed, etc. A violation of a law in this sphere is a “malum prohibitum” – bad because prohibited – less severe than something obviously wrong in itself, and thus subject to a lesser penalty. Similarly, I think, many tolerant Christians can’t bear the thought that their God would condemn caring people who only violate rules about which they didn’t know, and in any case involved no harm to anyone. So they’re conforming their God to their own sense of fair play, reading themselves into Biblical law, rather than extracting Biblical law from scripture.
On one hand, I agree that they don’t seem to be thinking rigorously based on the plain text of the Bible; on the other, they may have in mind notions of mercy without which human law is cruel indeed: consider where canonical application of the law in “Measure for Measure” or “Merchant of Venice” would have led. No light matter, and grist for discussion on law vs. mercy. But shouldn’t God’s law be perfect in a way that human law isn’t?
Limbo was a theological construct by people wrestling with this very question. It was never actually a doctrine of the RCC (and has generally been rejected by Protestants and ignored by Orthodox). Going back to Romans 2, the majority of Christians (with the obvious exception of a few rigid groups) accept that God will judge a person based on the person’s heart, not on whether they have or have not happened to have heard (and understood or accepted) some biblical passages.
Ah, I’m glad this thread was revived . . . I’d lost track of it.
**Neurotic, I think this is a very good point:
[shameless flatterly]Since I have had plenty of time to absorb the kindness of Christians at the SDMB (and elsewhere), I’m bound to hell for sure.[/shameless flattery]
And thanks, tomndebb, whichever one you are, for the cite.
Well, verses 12 - 15 do seem to be the heart of the issue.
In one of the few passages where Jesus actually discusses the judgement in concrete terms, Matthew 25: 31 - 46, he says
Note, that in this instance, he says not one word regarding belief. (Of course, that point can be argued regarding context and other statements of Jesus, but I always find it fun to toss out at folks who seem to believe that expressing faith is a magic charm that guarantees salvation.)
My understanding is that the key ingredient to get into Heaven is faith. Love and good deeds are results of that faith. Having knowledge of Jesus is irrelevant. Romans 1:20 shows this:
This is why people who lived before Jesus existed still had a chance of making it to Heaven. For example, Galatians 3:6 shows that Abraham, who lived before Christ, made it to Heaven based on his faith.
Tom &/or Deb :), thanks for the reply. Romans 2 enjoins Christians not to condemn eagerly or hypocritically given their own foibles — but it doesn’t suggest that God won’t condemn based on actions. As Podkayne emphasizes in citing verses 14-15, even the actions of those outside the law may either justify or condemn them. But your point on matters of belief as opposed to conduct is reasonable. I’m getting mainly at the latter here. Romans 6 expands on the outward, or behavioral, signs of salvation — the saved seek to avoid sin and those who go on sinning with gusto aren’t saved (it seems to contradict the notion of justification by faith alone, no? I.e. it proposes that if you have faith, you will show it by your actions, logically equavalent to saying that if you don’t show it by your actions, you don’t have faith). I fear my girlfriend and I fit into the latter category — we live together, and none too chastely. We see nothing wrong with it; we respect each other’s and others’ free choice (our standard of ethics), but that certainly doesn’t cut it according to the doctrine of her RC church, which views it as a violation of natural law, a debasement of God’s purpose for sex (linked with procreation and only for married couples!), and a mortal sin. Accepting the admonitions of Romans 2 and not condemning us yourselves, you’d still have to admit, I think, that there’s not much in the Book to exonerate us.
The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver is about just such an idiot. It’s about the family of a missionary who goes to the Belgian Congo and is an utter and complete failure. Part of the problem is that he refuses to learn the language well enough, so instead of saying “Jesus is God,” he keeps telling the villagers “Jesus is poisonous.” Really interesting book.
Anyway, you could say that the villagers never really heard “the good news,” but you could also say that the missionary did make himself clear in other ways, so the villagers are liable for not accepting Jesus.
I’ll admit up front that I’ve always considered this “go to heaven for being a good person if you haven’t learned about Jesus” thing a cop-out by literalist Christians so that they do not have to accede to the monstrous unfairness of condemning all non-Christians to Hell, but maybe I’ve just never heard the whole story.
(If your sect doesn’t believe that non-beleivers who have heard the World automatically go to Hell, Mazal Tov, but I’m interested in the literalist point of view.)**
This is probably something of a hi-jack, but I wanted to interject it since no one else has mentioned it.
Non-Christians who have The Word (and not converted) or haven’t heard it at all have nothing to worry about. Since they’re not Christians, they’re not bound by the rules and regulations of Christianity. They’ll end up going to whatever version of the Afterlife is described in their own faith.
As a Methodist, which I do not believe is considered a rigid group, I wish you were right. The UMC believes that it is by the acceptance of Jesus as one’s savior and not by deeds that one goes to Heaven. Once during a bible study class the teacher (the minister) told me that the Book of James was almost left out of the bible, because of its statement of “deeds alone”. I personally agree with you and appreciate the cite of Romans 2.
Then nobody has anything to worry about. Only believers can go to hell. But if you are a believer then you will live a good life and go to heaven.**
By believer, do you mean Christian? What if I believe that the J/C/I God exists and that Christianity is a valid belief system, yet I chose to not follow it for my own reasons. Instead, I follow another religion that I feel is better for me?
I’d say you’ve got it; that is exactly what the “nicer Christians” are doing. In the US, Christianity is the dominent religion, in that it’s the one the most people say they belong to. But to me, it seems that a great many people are basically making up their own religion. It’s usually based on Christianity because that’s what they’re familiar with. But it’s really something they’ve made up themselves, choosing things they like from Christianity, and rejecting things they don’t like. And if they’ve heard of something they like in any of the many non-Christian religons, they may add that in, too. Bring up something “un-nice” in Christianity, and they’ll just dismiss it with an, “oh, I don’t believe in that”. Even if it’s a major point of Christianity, such as described in the OP.
In reference to my last post, let me add that I approve of people making up their own religion. Better that then actual Christianity, say I, considering that Christianity includes such things as Podkayne describes in the OP. But I do kinda wish they’d face up to the fact that they are not really Christians. Instead of saying, "I’m a Babtist (or Catholic, or Methodist, or whichever church they were born into) why not say “I was raised as a (whichever brand of Christianity), but I’ve developed my own beliefs” or my “…my own version of Christianity” ?
The thing is, if you reject any of the important tenents of the religion into which you were born, yet go on saying you’re a member, it incorrectly inflates the membership stats of that religion.