daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) (09/24/86)
Recently Kiki Herbst replied to one of my articles (her msg = <302@isieng.UUCP>). One of the things she said had a ring of truth and some things were just plain erroneous. The good thing she said was : >Thank God that we have been given minds so that we can rationally evaluate >what truth and fact is. Just because a large number of people believe >something or have "tons of faith" doesn't make something true. Kiki, from your mouth to Jerry Falwell's, Pat Robertson's, Billy Graham's, and the Popes ears. In fact, from your mouth to your own ears. Unfortunately, she then went on to say: >Jesus was probably the most remembered character in human history. More >books have been written, more songs sung, more paintings painted, more great >drama written than any other figure in the past. Oh wow! Deja Vu! Well Kiki, I hate to burst your bubble, but the most widely remembered and enshrined person in history is Siddartha (also called Buddha). There are more artistic representations of Siddartha than of any other human (Hell, even the game _Trivial_Pursuits_ knows that). Also, Buddha lived over a thousand years before Jesus was born. That's an additional thousand years to be forgotten, but his fame just keeps on growing. In your own words: >Have you ever wondered why? Why doesn't he fade into the past like others? By your own logic we will have to declare Buddha as the true GOD. I think he'd have laughed at this. As to Jesus being remembered, I doubt that even 30% of the world's population has ever seen a picture, read a poem or even heard a sermon about Jesus. Think about it, over half the world's population resides in China and India and the christian population in both countries is miniscule ( I would be willing to bet that most people in either country couldn't tell you two "facts" about Jesus). The next most populous country is the USSR, and it too has a very small christian population. Then there's Africa, and southeast Asia, both of which have a relatively small (proportionately) christian populations (especially compared to the Moslem faith). Suddenly we find that Jesus isn't all that well remembered. One must remember though, that according to christian doctrine all who do not accept Jesus as lord are to burn in hell. That would mean that 98+ percent of the world's population (past and present) are burning, or are destined to burn, in hell for no other reason than they didn't even get a chance (through no fault of their own) to find out who Jesus was. The Christian god is omniscient, he should have seen that one comming. When a christian asks me to join his/her religion, he/she usually gives me 3 reasons : 1. The bible (which is not verifiably more authentic than other religious texts from other religions). 2. The miracles of Jesus which were witnessed by his followers.(Why should I accept the word of christian witnesses that I can't verify (ie: what's their names, where are their statements and where is their proof aside from the bible) over the word of more numerous witnesses to another god's miracle). 3. Jesus loves me (this also is to accepted without proof). All of which adds up to pure faith. And then I find christians who believe that faith in a god without proof is bad (unless its in the chistian god). I am supposed to find the story of Krishna, where he comes to earth in super- human form and kills a demon and has it witnessed by 100,000 people, ridiculous. On the other hand I am supposed to believe the story of Jesus, where he comes to earth in god/human form, has a debate with a demon and has his biggest miracle witnessed by a mere 400 people, is very reasonable and obviously the truth. It is this expectation from christians that I find ridiculous. Enjoyed this Immensely, Dave Butler Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (09/29/86)
In article <2754@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: >Recently Kiki Herbst replied to one of my articles (her msg = ><302@isieng.UUCP>). One of the things she said had a ring of truth and some >things were just plain erroneous. The good thing she said was : > >>Thank God that we have been given minds so that we can rationally evaluate >>what truth and fact is. Just because a large number of people believe >>something or have "tons of faith" doesn't make something true.... > >>Jesus was probably the most remembered character in human history. More >>books have been written, more songs sung, more paintings painted, more great >>drama written than any other figure in the past. > >Oh wow! Deja Vu! Well Kiki, I hate to burst your bubble, but the most widely >remembered and enshrined person in history is Siddartha (also called Buddha). >There are more artistic representations of Siddartha than of any other human >(Hell, even the game _Trivial_Pursuits_ knows that). Also, Buddha lived over >a thousand years before Jesus was born. That's an additional thousand years >to be forgotten, but his fame just keeps on growing. I don't know where you come up with your info on Siddartha (I don't know if Trivial Pursuit is a real good source of proof :-)). I know the number one selling book of all times is the Bible. Let's good back for a minute to my good point about minds and rational evaluation. My original point about the number of followers of Christ was that numerous people have made rational choices to receive Christ. But I also said that mere numbers is not a rational reason for making a choice! I kept my original quote in this article that said that even though a large number of people believe something, quantity doesn't make it true, but it probably makes you stop to think about it twice. Siddhartha's large followings, in the same way, should make people think twice. > >By your own logic we will have to declare Buddha as the true GOD. I think >he'd have laughed at this... And so do I. I don't know where you come up with my "own logic" when I was saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. >One must remember though, that according to christian doctrine all who do not >accept Jesus as lord are to burn in hell. That would mean that 98+ percent of >the world's population (past and present) are burning, or are destined to >burn, in hell for no other reason than they didn't even get a chance (through >no fault of their own) to find out who Jesus was. The Christian god >is omniscient, he should have seen that one comming. Wrong again. The Bible says that man who does not "through any fault of their own" find out who Jesus is will be judged on different terms. Romans 3:13 says "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous, but those who live by the law that are declared righteous." Man who does not know Jesus, the Bible says in Romans, will not be judged by whether or not they had the opportunity to hear about Jesus, they will be judged according to how they respond to God in their lives. The Bible says that God has made himself evident in every person's life and has written himself on their hearts and consciences. > When a christian asks me to join his/her religion, he/she usually gives >me 3 reasons : > 1. The bible (which is not verifiably more authentic than other > religious texts from other religions). Have you researched that? > 2. The miracles of Jesus which were witnessed by his followers.(Why > should I accept the word of christian witnesses that I can't verify > (ie: what's their names, where are their statements and where is their > proof aside from the bible) over the word of more numerous witnesses > to another god's miracle). > Which makes more sense? A god with a bunch of arms doing mystic actions or the story of a man. > 3. Jesus loves me (this also is to accepted without proof). He said so. Is that proof? >All of which adds up to pure faith. And then I find christians who believe >that faith in a god without proof is bad (unless its in the chistian god). I >am supposed to find the story of Krishna, where he comes to earth in super- >human form and kills a demon and has it witnessed by 100,000 people, >ridiculous. On the other hand I am supposed to believe the story of Jesus, >where he comes to earth in god/human form, has a debate with a demon and has >his biggest miracle witnessed by a mere 400 people, is very reasonable and >obviously the truth. It is this expectation from christians that I find >ridiculous. Then don't believe it! You have your own mind and can make rational decisions. Believe in Krishna and his supernatural form, if you'd like. Follow the teachings of Siddhartha and reach a state of "nothingness" if that's what you think is right. As a Christian, I don't expect you to believe anything. But *I* know that God exists. My life has been changed and it is the best thing that has ever happened to me. Nothing more than that! You can make your own decision. I don't even know who you are, how could I expect anything of you? But, I am willing to tell anybody about the life that I have found in Jesus. Why cover up something that has such tremendous impact on my life? You can do whatever you want; I've got what I want! > Enjoyed this Immensely, > Dave Butler > Me Too, Kiki Herbst > > Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" 1 Peter 3:15
slg@ukma.uky.csnet (Sean Gilley) (10/01/86)
>> is Dave Butler > is Kiki Herbst >Wrong again. The Bible says that man who does not "through any fault of their >own" find out who Jesus is will be judged on different terms. Romans 3:13 says >"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous, but those who live by >the law that are declared righteous." Man who does not know Jesus, the Bible >says in Romans, will not be judged by whether or not they had the opportunity >to hear about Jesus, they will be judged according to how they respond to God >in their lives. The Bible says that God has made himself evident in every >person's life and has written himself on their hearts and consciences. Oh. Then I don't have to accept Christ as savior, just do good works? (".. those who live by the law..."). I'm afraid many Christians would argue with that. >> When a christian asks me to join his/her religion, he/she usually gives >>me 3 reasons : >> 1. The bible (which is not verifiably more authentic than other >> religious texts from other religions). > >Have you researched that? Whether that person has or not, I have. There is little outside of the bible to support the things contained within. It is, in fact, rather hard to come up with authenticated accounts of happenings inside the bible from other sources. When you can, many sources are just as suspect as the bible because they are still religious writings. (As per the so called `gnostic' writings.) It's just as easy to authenticate what Bhudda did as to authenticate the existance of Jesus. >> 2. The miracles of Jesus which were witnessed by his followers.(Why >> should I accept the word of christian witnesses that I can't verify >> (ie: what's their names, where are their statements and where is their >> proof aside from the bible) over the word of more numerous witnesses >> to another god's miracle). >> >Which makes more sense? A god with a bunch of arms doing mystic actions or >the story of a man. Er.. the story of a man who claimed to be God. The story of a man who claimed to be God feeding 400 people with one or two fish. The story of a man who claimed to be God feeding 400 people with one or two fish and who came back from the dead. To be honest, they sound about equal in absurdity to me. >But *I* know that God exists. My life has been changed and it is the best >thing that has ever happened to me. Nothing more than that! You can make >your own decision. I don't even know who you are, how could I expect anything >of you? But, I am willing to tell anybody about the life that I have found >in Jesus. Why cover up something that has such tremendous impact on my life? >You can do whatever you want; I've got what I want! And how many people around are there who believed once as you do.. and then realized, or discovered, or found they were wrong. They exist. Many of them do actual research on Christianity to know what is was and is. To know how it came about. I am doing that research. I think I can safely say I'll never again be a christian. Sean. --- Sean L. Gilley Phone: (606) 272-9620 or (606) 257-8781 {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma{!ukgs}!slg, slg@UKMA.BITNET Well, I have seen a king and queen, a begger falling at my feet They all must see the same sad dreams at night Futility and senseless war, pit the rich against the poor For causes buried long before the fight
daveb@pogo.UUCP (10/05/86)
It seems that Kiki doesn't like my using the reference _Trivial_Pursuits_
to prove that Buddha was more widely represented in art than Jesus. Well
Kiki, I wish to point out that it is an actual reference. If you wanted
to expend the time you could, from this reference, call the company that
made the game and actually trace down their sources as I'm planning to do.
On the other hand Kiki, you gave no reference for your statement that Jesus
is the most widely represented person, no reference at all (people who live
in glass houses and all that).
When I asked you where all the people who have never heard of Jesus after
they die, you quoted from the bible:
> "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous, but those who live
> by the law that are declared righteous."
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? How many people in the
world know not to mix meat and milk, not to consume blood, to always eat
Kosher and never eat pork, to remain outside the village for several days
after you bury someone, not to have sex during menstruation, etc, etc,
etc... . 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
(According to _The_World_Almanac_ only 22% of the worlds population is
Christian). By the way, doesn't it say somewhere in the new testament that
no man can live up to these "Laws" except by the grace of Jesus? I'm not
positive, but I do remember being told something like that by evangelists.
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".
I guess I'd like to know your answers to just 2 of the questions
I've asked:
1: What is your reference that Jesus is the most artistically
portrayed person in history (remember, if you're going to complain about
references, yours better be superior to mine).
2: What is this "The Law" that everyone ignorant of Jesus will be
judged by after they die(I'll want a reference for this too).
Curiously Yours,
Dave Butler
Its more important to know what is correct, rather than who is correct.
Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.daveb@pogo.UUCP (10/05/86)
Kiki, I'm glad you decided to let me have my faith. eg: > Then don't believe it! You have your own mind and can make rational > decisions. Believe in Krishna and his supernatural form, if you'd like. > Follow the teachings of Siddhartha and reach a state of "nothingness" if > that's what you think is right. As a Christian, I don't expect you to > believe anything. > You can do whatever you want; I've got what I want! That's right Kiki, you and other Christians believe in you faith because it makes you feel good, and I'll believe in my faith because it makes me feel good. But, neither you or any other has the right to demand that I accept *your* faith because it will make *you* feel better. You grudgingly agree to this, but many Christians don't. I remember the annual Boy Scout Camperee in eastern Washington. On Sunday morning every boy, except those few who were Jewish, were required to go to church services (either Catholic or Protestant). It didn't matter who you were or what your faith, or lack of it, was, if you weren't Jewish then you went to services. Some boys would always ask to be excused, and that's when the "fun" started. First, the Scout Leader came over to talk with the boy, in the midst of the other scouts. Amidst catcalls of "Aw come on, watcha fraid of?", the Leader would ask questions like "Is there anything in your religion that forbids you to go to a Christian service?", "Do you see anything wrong with Christianity?", "Why are you afraid of going to services?". If this didn't intimidate them sufficiently, Camperee officials came over in full uniform and took the boy to one side. They explained that every boy had to be supervised, and all the supervision was distributed between three groups : the Catholics, the Protestants and the Jews. If the boy asked to remain with the Jews, who were not having a Sunday service, he was told that was impossible. That particular group was just for Jews and that He'd have to choose one of the other two groups. The experience would be good for him anyway. No boy, to my knowledge, ever made it past that level of intimidation. While working at a summer job, I remember second level manager being forced tell a noon prayer circle (which included a first level manager) to quit presuring others to join the group. I remember watching the news about 2 years ago when a Christian Yellow Pages came out in California. The yellow pages were so that Christians could be sure of the religion of the business owners in the area. It seemed that it had its biggest negative effects were seen by small family businesses (eg: dry cleaners, groceries, hardware stores, etc) that decided not to publically declare their religious preferences (big chain stores weren't hurt, after what good Christian would give up Mcdonald's). I remember being harangued on my college campus by evangelists (Only in my day it was Holy Hubert and self proclaimed Saint Ray. I wonder if they're still around), I and my girlfriend insulted just because we walked by. No Kiki, not all Christians are willing to allow us heathens to remain out of grace. They're even willing to be insulting and use mild extortion to force people to be saved. They consider it not only their right, but their duty to convert the rest of the world. In a way, I do appreciate your grudging allowance for me to have my own non-christian point of view, but it is the above stated Christian attitude that makes me bristle easily when a Christian goes on a diatribe about the obvious silliness of other religions. Enjoyed this Immensely, (Not meant sarcastically) Dave Butler Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (10/05/86)
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.kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (10/06/86)
In article <4817@ukma.uky.csnet> slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) writes: > >>> is Dave Butler >> is Kiki Herbst > >>Wrong again. The Bible says that man who does not "through any fault of their >>own" find out who Jesus is will be judged on different terms. Romans 3:13 says >>"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous, but those who live by >>the law that are declared righteous." Man who does not know Jesus, the Bible >>says in Romans, will not be judged by whether or not they had the opportunity >>to hear about Jesus, they will be judged according to how they respond to God >>in their lives. The Bible says that God has made himself evident in every >>person's life and has written himself on their hearts and consciences. > > Oh. Then I don't have to accept Christ as savior, just do > good works? (".. those who live by the law..."). I'm afraid > many Christians would argue with that. > It says man who haven't heard about Jesus...you obviously have. > And how many people around are there who believed once as you do.. > and then realized, or discovered, or found they were wrong. They > exist. Many of them do actual research on Christianity to know > what is was and is. To know how it came about. I am doing > that research. I think I can safely say I'll never again be > a christian. > > Sean. > That's too bad. But, you see, you did make your decision based on knowing who Christ was and is. You decided against Jesus, but had the opportunity to evaluate his claims. The original question was about those who never heard of Christ. Kiki
kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (10/06/86)
> I guess I'd like to know your answers to just 2 of the questions >I've asked: > 1: What is your reference that Jesus is the most artistically >portrayed person in history (remember, if you're going to complain about >references, yours better be superior to mine). I never complained in the first place! In fact my original statemnt was the Jesus was probably the most remembered figure. Whether he is or isn't the most important is not the point. The whole purpose for the original statement which I will repeat for the third time is this: It doesn't matter how many people believe in something because sheer numbers don't make it truth. Large numbers, though, cause you to think about something twice whether it is Jesus (like I mentioned) or Buddha or Lenin (like you mentioned). Now I hope you don't feel like you have to write to Trivial Pursuit to get the basis for their statement. > 2: What is this "The Law" that everyone ignorant of Jesus will be >judged by after they die(I'll want a reference for this too). This is what it says in Romans 2:14: "Indeed when Gentiles, who *do not have the law*, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them." In the Old Testament Moses was given the law, the 10 commandments (Luke 24:44). Man who didn't know, read, or hear this law still has an inherent god-given knowledge of what is right or wrong, it is "written on their hearts." Later in Romans 8: 3 the Bible says "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." Romans also explains that the Holy Spirit gives helps us to live under the law which is a sinless (Rom. 7:8) and holy (Romans 7:12) life. So to summarize, everybody has a good concept of what is right and wrong. Our problem is resisting the wrongs. No man is completely sinless, but Jesus can give righteousness. If someone doesn't know Jesus through no fault of his own, God judges him in a different way: by how that individual responds to God's inner stirrings in his heart. For most of us, those inner stirrings are to investigate the claims of Jesus because we can readily find out whether they are true. For someone like tribesman in Africa, where a Bible and Jesus is unheard of, God will relate to them differently. I'm not God, so I don't know exactly how he does that. > > Curiously Yours, > > Dave Butler > > > Its more important to know what is correct, rather than who is correct. > Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. Kiki
kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) (10/06/86)
In article <2773@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: >Kiki, I'm glad you decided to let me have my faith. eg: > >> Then don't believe it! You have your own mind and can make rational >> decisions. Believe in Krishna and his supernatural form, if you'd like. >> Follow the teachings of Siddhartha and reach a state of "nothingness" if >> that's what you think is right. As a Christian, I don't expect you to >> believe anything. >> You can do whatever you want; I've got what I want! > > That's right Kiki, you and other Christians believe in you faith because >it makes you feel good, and I'll believe in my faith because it makes me >feel good. But, neither you or any other has the right to demand that I >accept *your* faith because it will make *you* feel better. You grudgingly >agree to this, but many Christians don't. >...{many comments about forced Christianity} > No Kiki, not all Christians are willing to allow us heathens to remain >out of grace. They're even willing to be insulting and use mild extortion >to force people to be saved. They consider it not only their right, but >their duty to convert the rest of the world. In a way, I do appreciate >your grudging allowance for me to have my own non-christian point of view, >but it is the above stated Christian attitude that makes me bristle easily >when a Christian goes on a diatribe about the obvious silliness of other >religions. > > Enjoyed this Immensely, > (Not meant sarcastically) > > Dave Butler > > > Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. I can't resist always replying to your messages, I guess your "Enjoyed this Immensely" causes me to want to continue the entertainment. :-) Now as for your comments. I agree. I can't stand being proselytized either, in fact, I rebelled against it for so long that I probably would have become a Christian a lot sooner if people hadn't hassled me. But when I became curious, I was glad there were people who were around who would answer my questions. That's how I see this net. People are asking rational, intelligent questions and others are providing answers. The forum is intended to discuss our believes, not to hide them. As you said, you're not interested and don't want to be forced in someone else's faith. Then why even deal with this network? What's your aim? To find out what people think? To talk people out of their beliefs? If it wasn't faith we were discussing, how would you feel about using comparison/contrast and opinion statements in debate? Kiki
marty@ism780c.UUCP (10/07/86)
This message is empty.
daveb@pogo.UUCP (10/14/86)
In article <6087@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Charles Hendricks tried to answer some of my questions to Kiki. One of my questions was, "What laws will non-christians be judged by if they haven't heard of Jesus?" I wondered if it was the mosaic law (which is almost impossible to live up to). Charles said > 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. Took me a while to find reference to these laws (Charles, I really wish that you'd put in references). The St James Bible doesn't specifically mention them, but I did finally find them in an annotated Hebrew Pentateuch (First 5 books of Moses). There are only 3 Laws that explicitly translate to english : 1. You shall not commit murder, or allow a murderer (human or otherwise) to live. 2. You shall not commit suicide. 3. You shall not eat the flesh of living animals and you shall above all not comsume the blood of any animal. But Hebrew scholars note that there are 4 additional Noachic laws that are implicit in the Hebrew, but don't translate well out of Hebrew because of the way they were stated. These laws are: 4. You shall not commit robbery. 5. You will create courts of Law and Judgement. 6. You will not commit Idolatry. 7. You will not Blaspheme. Well Charles, No. 6 will keep almost all the non-Christians out of Heaven, and if it doesn't No. 3 will. Do you have any idea how many people eat blood? The germanic people (and others) eat blutwurst (bloodwurst). The Masaii eat raw blood from *live* cattle mixed with milk. How many people eat live clams and oysters. Finally, how many people know how to butcher in the true Kosher fashion, so that no blood will be left in the muscle. To my knowledge, the Jews are the only ones that have developed a technique for doing that. Yep, I doubt that more than a couple of percent of todays non-Christian population (which is approx 78% of the worlds population according to _The_World_Almanac_ ) will be able to satisfy all the Noachic laws (To repeat myself, the Christian God should have seen that one coming). Then Charles also said: > 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. Funny, according to almost all of ministers I've talked with, God cannot, or will not, communicate with any man who has not been cleansed by blood sacrifice. Since the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed (the only place humans could make blood sacrifice), the only blood sacrifice available was that of Jesus. If a man is not cleansed by such a sacrifice, God will not communicate with him (ie: even if a man believed in God, but didn't accept Jesus, he was still damned to hell. No matter how good a man he was, God would never hear him or speak to him). Did these people speak out of ignorance, or were they lying to me? Hoping for further clarification, Dave Butler Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (10/14/86)
In response to the continuing discussion with Daveb on the salvation of non-Christians. In particular, the discussion over what Paul said in Romans 2 about Gentiles. I'm sorry for any confusion caused by the fact I didn't list the specific Noachic laws (the laws that 1st Cent. Jewish traditions said were binding on non-Jews). I was in my office, and didn't have my reference books handy. The list that you finally came up with is roughly the one I have. However my source (a Jewish commentator on Paul, H. J. Schoeps, in "Paul") mentions not eating the flesh of living animals, but not the requirement that there be no blood in meat. It also says that there were never a precise agreement on the number of Noachic laws. The whole point of that interpretive tradition was to find a way to consider the pious of all of nations acceptable to God. Thus a reading that rules out all but a few percent of the world's population is not in accordance with the intent of that interpretation. But in any case, no matter what other 1st Cent. rabbis may have said, what Paul seems to be saying is that people will be judged according to what has been revealed to them, the Jews by their Law and the Gentiles by what God has made known to them in their hearts. The continual attempt to get out of this passage a specific set of laws that apply to the Gentiles appears to be diametrically opposed to what Paul is saying. (This is the reason why I didn't wait until I got home and could give a precise definition of the Noachic laws. The main point of my argument was that Paul was not setting up a law for Gentiles.) You mention the importance of blood sacrifice. Apparently ministers that you talk to claim that God will not talk to anyone who has not been cleansed by such a sacrifice. There are certainly Christian traditions that emphasize blood sacrifice in this way. But not even all conservative Christians would put things quite that way. The general Christian position is that all people have sinned, and thus deserve death. Christ's death substitutes for ours. The manner in which his death releases us from the results of our sin (an action referred as as the atonement) has never been formulated precisely. There are several models used in scripture, and some additional ones introduced in later Christian discussions. I think many Christians would say that ultimately it is a mystery, and that no one model will completely describe it. (I'm not saying that the models conflict, or lead to differing ideas of what it means to accept Christ, by the way.) Anyway, this emphasis on blood sacrifice comes from one specific model of the atonement. I don't think anyone was lying to you. Just perhaps letting their own particular emphasis dominate the discussion a bit more than maybe they should. But whether a blood sacrifice is needed is not relevant anyway. The issue under discussion is not whether everyone needs Christ's redemption. All Christians (at least the way I use the word) agree that they do. The issue is whether it is possible for someone to be redeemed by Christ without having heard of him, or after having had Christ presented in an inappropriate manner. I have no idea how a vote on this topic among all Christians would come out. There are certainly plenty of Christians who believe that you must specifically believe in Christ as preached in the NT in order to be saved. But those who believe, as I do, that Christ can find other ways to encounter people are not thereby minimizing the importance of Christ's death and resurrection. These are still the only way people can be reconciled to God. We are just saying that God may find a way to allow people to take advantage of them even if they have not had an opportunity to respond to the Gospel in its explicit form.
cc100jr@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Joel Rives) (10/16/86)
In article <321@isieng.UUCP> kiki@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes: > >Now as for your comments. I agree. I can't stand being proselytized either, >in fact, I rebelled against it for so long that I probably would have become >a Christian a lot sooner if people hadn't hassled me. But when I became >curious, I was glad there were people who were around who would answer my >questions. That's how I see this net. People are asking rational, intelligent >questions and others are providing answers. The forum is intended to discuss >our believes, not to hide them. As you said, you're not interested and don't >want to be forced in someone else's faith. Then why even deal with this >network? What's your aim? To find out what people think? To talk people out of >their beliefs? If it wasn't faith we were discussing, how would you feel about >using comparison/contrast and opinion statements in debate? > > >Kiki I am responding to this mostly because I have been unable to reach Kiki through mail. Indeed, this forum does seem to be intended for the discussion of various belief systems. Some people seem to feel that it is also a forum for conversion. These are not the same thing. I am interested in hearing about the spiritual experiences of others. I hope they may be interested in mine. I am not interested in having someone tell me that my spiritual experiences are not as important because I do not associate them with the Christian god. I am not interested in having someone suggest that my beliefs are misguided because I do not happen to believe what they believe. This type of action is highly insulting and does not lead to open discussion. If you have come to this forum to learn, then I suggest that you ask a few questions. The comments I have seen in this newsgroup and the letter Kiki sent me concerning Buddhism show a serious lack of knowledge in that area. What is worse, there appears to be a great deal of misinformation filling the gap. There are, I think, several people who read this newsgroup, who are knowledgable about Buddhism and would be more than willing to discuss it with you if you would only ask the questions. The attitude that one brings to these discussions will determine the value of the responses. Come to this forum with the idea that you possess all the answers (or at least you have a book that has all the answers in it) and you will find that there is no purpose for your being here. Come to this forum with a sincere interest to learn and to grow and you may find it a very enriching experience. -- Joel Rives gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr There is no place to seek the mind; It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky.