Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!sri-spam!rutgers!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc Subject: Re: Christian logic (or lack) was: Re: One more time Message-ID: <6087@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sun, 5-Oct-86 16:14:55 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.6087 Posted: Sun Oct 5 16:14:55 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Oct-86 05:44:25 EDT References: <2772@pogo.UUCP> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 66 In watching the discussion between Kiki and Dave Butler, I can't help asking: Why must non-Christians force Christians into an intolerant mold? Kiki made a fairly straightforward statement of her belief: that God judges people who haven't heard of Christ on the basis of how they respond to God in their lives. The clear implication is that God finds some way to make himself known, and thus that those who haven't heard of Christ can still respond to God. She then quoted one sentence from a passage in Paul that seems to say the same thing. In the response, somehow this has turned into yet another intolerant statement. Kiki, quoting Romans: "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous, but those who live by the law that are declared righteous." Dave Butler: Ie: If a person has not heard of Jesus, then after they die, they will be judged according to "the Law", instead of whether they accepted Jesus. What law is this? The Old Testament mosaic laws? ... If thats "The Law" you're talking about, then it looks like almost all the people that haven't heard of Jesus are still in, or going to, Hell. It looks like Kiki may have included too little of the passage. If you look at the context, Paul is using the term law in a somewhat more generalized sense, to refer to Godly actions. He specifically talks of those who do such actions even though they do not know The Law. From other discussions, it is clear that Paul subscribed to the common 1st Cent. rabbinical idea that Gentiles who wanted to follow God were bound only by the Noachic laws, not by the entire Mosaic convenant. (This was a set of four laws that were enjoined on Noah's family when they left the ark. They were taken by the rabbis as defining what it meant to be human, as opposed to what it meant to be Jewish.) But in this passage, I don't think anything so specific was meant. I suggest reading the whole section from which this is taken (Romans 2). Note by the way, that the passage was originally directed against intolerance, by Christians who believed that it was necessary to accept the Mosaic Law to be saved. Applying it to the issue of those who have not heard of Christ involves some analogy, though I think it is legitimate. Dave also asks a rather good question: Also, what if the person hears about Jesus from some hatemonger like Brother Jed. If the only times they heard about Jesus, the peacher called them a pimp, a whore, that all their relatives were burning in hell and they soon would be as well if they didn't immediately bow down and grovel before this new foreign (to them ) god. Does God give give special dispensation for such people to reject Jesus, because they only heard preachings of hate about "the Prince Of Peace". In my opinion, attaching the name "Jesus" to a portrayal that can only inspire fear and rejection is one of the most serious offenses a Christian can commit. I would think Jesus would be pleased to see people reject such an image. This doesn't mean that those who accept Jesus in this way are necessarily damned. God may bring them later to an appreciation of what he is really like. But it's not a great start. In fairness, let me note that normally fire and brimstone was preached at people who were nominally Christian. They would already have other knowledge about the Christian concept of God, including his love. The fire and brimstone was used to get people to take their religion more seriously. It was seldom the primary way that God was portrayed. Christian missions to those with no background in Christianity do not simply start out by threatening people with hellfire. As far as I know, they never did. That's not to say that I approve of fire and brimstone preaching. But Brother Jed is not typical of even the most fundamentalist Christianity.