mikes@tekecs.UUCP (10/14/86)
In article <2815@pogo.UUCP>, daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: > [stuff about the Noahic laws wrt non-Christians...] > 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). I'm not sure where the idea came from that everyone in the world was going to be judged by rules they might not have been told, simply because of where or when they were born. I think that most Christians believe that God is good and just, and will therefore find a way to make all this equitable (the biggest Not My Problem there is :-). The LDS church teaches that those people who, through no fault of their own, did not hear about Jesus (etc), will have a chance to hear it after death, and accept it or reject it as if they were still "in the flesh." This takes care of all the people born in different times or places that precluded them from hearing the Gospel, and those who might have heard it but were lead down a different path and so never came in contact with it. It is interesting to note also that many peoples do have a tradition of a Spirit or God or Maker that fits quite nicely with the concept of the Christian God (what some Christians call the "God-shaped-vacuum" in the heart, and what some anthropologists maintain leads humans to construct a God-belief in the first place). The mBhuti in Africa, for example, believe that the jungle is God, as it takes care of them from birth to death. Reading a description of their belief in their provider, it seemed to me that they had hit closer to the mark with what they had been given than many Christians do with all their laws, rites, and traditions. Surely a just and loving God would be pleased with the mBhuti, and provide for them anything else they were not able to get while on earth. > 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? > > Dave Butler Well, they were at least mistaken. If God cannot or will not communicate to those who do not believe in him (or worse, do not specifically believe in Jesus as God), then how do you explain things such as Saul's [Paul's] conversion, or my conversion, or any number of others'? I think it is highly egocentric for Christians to believe that they have God all to themselves. Aren't the rest of his children just as important as the Christians are (remember the parable of the one lost sheep)? I believe that God will hear you if you are sincere, though this is not to say that you will be saved simply because you are sincere. I also believe that God can and does communicate with non-Christians as he chooses to. I already mentioned Saul's rather dramatic conversion (he was just a little bit non-Christian before his conversion), and in Daniel God communicates with Nebachudnezzar (well, the spelling is close, anyway) through a couple of dreams and through one plainly visible incident (the hand writing on the wall). The upshot is that God can and does communicate with non-Christians, and that *everyone* will be given their fair chance to accept or reject the Gospel. -- Mike Sellers UUCP: {...your spinal column here...}!tektronix!tekecs!mikes Disclaimer: I'm trying to come up with something witty but our news software is limiting us to four line .signature files...