Are mentally challenged people exempt from accepting Jesus as their personal savior?

Sleeppy said:

No. Don't make assumptions about me or anything I say. Always ask for clarification.

But, I understand where your intent is in the post.. So I'll just address it directly without going into my thoughts on the humane treatment of prisoners, etc..

I don't hold any concept of never ending torture.

Click to expand...

In that case I'm curious what the meaning of your question was.

PolyHedral said:

You are quite clearly talking about hell with a metaphor.

Click to expand...

Not a metaphor. I hadn't drawn the analogy yet.

ForeverFaithful said:

Nope, Bible says you got a choice between Endless Life or Death, (John 3:16)

Eternal Hellfire is a papist heresy,

Click to expand...

yes , it says life or death, not hell .

FlyingTeaPot said:

Well? Are they? What if they are incapable of accepting Jesus as their personal savior? Are they saved anyway or are they destined for hell?

Click to expand...

the answer is in the bible and no , they are not destined to hell. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and for refusing to believe in Him: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). An infant is not capable of rejecting Jesus Christ. An infant is incapable of committing the sin mentioned in John 16:9. As are the mental. Those who go to hell in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 are those who have deliberately disobeyed the gospel by refusing to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.Not that I believe in Hell as the lake of fire.

riley2112 said:

yes , it says life or death, not hell .

Click to expand...

But doesn't everyone succumb to death: die?

Drolefille said:

I haven't heard someone use papist as a derogatory term in a good long time.

Ah the old days. "Papist" though the origin of that may be, I'm not really going to go look it up, I've heard far more non-Catholic preachers preaching hellfire than I've heard priests say the same.

So are all these pastors papists in disguise, heretics, or is it perhaps broader than that?

Click to expand...

I would call them Papists, as in putting Tradition before Scripture

CarlinKnew said:

After I finished this post I realized you might not even believe in hell. If that's the case, disregard this entire post.

Click to expand...

I suppose I might believe in hell, but I don't know what type of a hell I believe in anymore. I find it to be nothing but a concept that distresses, distracts and derails.

I like what my boyfriend says regarding God and I think it's spot on. Though he doesn't fully believe in God, he believes if there is a God, God would be one of perfect love, logic and compassion.

CarlinKnew said:

Yes, this is a common rationalization. You believe that those who go to hell inflict it upon themselves, correct?God just gives them what they ask for, right? You and I both know that no one wants to go to hell, regardless of whatever decisions they make in their lives. If you and I can understand something this simple, don't you think a deity would understand it? Why would a deity create such a place if he had this simple understanding? If he was the epitome of love and compassion?.

Click to expand...

I have an obligation to be honest. If I'm to tell you that I believe int he bible, which I do (to a great extent - though much perplexes me and I interpret much differently than others), I can't deny that there's much within that mentions such concepts of damnation, hell, separation from God, etc.

But, I think that this can be interpreted in various ways. Yes, I do believe that we choose our ultimate spritual destination by our actions and choices in this lifetime, but I'm not sure that this will equate to a surprising thing for people when they pass on to the next life, as I think those of sound mind, know themselves quite well.

I'm of the mindset that God gave us free will and I'm of the mindset that God has given us many avenues in which to find him. I'm not of the belief that Christianity has to be the "right" path, you see. I can't buy that anymore. I think that there's a universality to spirituality that will ultimately lead us all to the same end and we grasp the paths that work the best for us.

However, I do believe that there is an adversary to that which light/love/God represents. And that can come in the form of rejection/apathy/hatred, etc.

For those that choose to live in hatred and to do unkind things - knowing that they are doing so, without remorse - I can buy that there may be an alternate end for them. But what that end is...I don't know for certain. How "hell" is defined is something I simply don't know.

And I'm open to the fact that I may be wrong. This is just what makes sense to me. For those that WANT an afterlife apart from God, I can't fathom why God would force reconciliation.

CarlinKnew said:

I wouldn't want to think about it either, otherwise I would be forced to reconsider a deeply held belief, and that can be very unsettling. I think you're a good person, and you're compartmentalizing this evil concept of hell because it's not in alignment wih your sense of morality.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, I believe that God will do what's compassionate and of love when it comes to his creation. Our greatest instruction was to love. I don't see any love in hell, as there's only fear in that concept.

CarlinKnew said:

Well then hopefully we begin in a good place.

Click to expand...

Hopefully.

Who, amongst us, is not mentally challenged?

Skwim said:

But doesn't everyone succumb to death: die?

Click to expand...

yep, but if you figure some way out of it , let me know.

swamplizard said:

Who, amongst us, is not mentally challenged?

Click to expand...

I don't have his book, but David Eagleman has been making the rounds doing interviews all over the place, and one point he stresses is that we have a false notion that other minds must be identical to ours. We excuse the obvious mentally impaired, but we expect others who may be more impulsive, or have short attention spans, or other more subtle deficiencies to be able to act like we do. This is a big enough problem in the criminal justice system that is mostly based on retribution, but it also applies here if we could cast the most ultimate judgment on people for the choices they made during their lives.

james2ko said:

Neither. According to scripture, after the millennium, they will be resurrected back to physical life, in perfectly good health, and be given an opportunity to accept or reject Christ.

Click to expand...

I see. What millenium? Can you quote the scripture here so that I can take a look? Thanks!

*EDIT*
Follow up question: Why would god go about doing this the long way anyway?
First he creates mentally handicapped people, then resurrects them, beings them back healthy and then give them an opportunity to accept or reject him.
Why not just create all people healthy?

Most Christians, when asked about why god creates sick people, reply that he is testing their faith. Then why create mentally handicapped people who are incapable of having any concept of faith?
He certainly can't test their faith. God knows they are incapable of making decisions, much less decisions about accepting him or rejecting him.
Did they do something bad in their past lives? Although that doesn't make sense for Christianity, more for Hinduism.

work in progress said:

That's a good question, because salvation based on faith, professions of faith, good works, or keeping a code of religious rules and injunctions, is already dependent on libertarian free will to qualify as a moral system. But, if we determine that the mentally impaired have limited free will and are excused, what about everyone else? Our minds aren't identical and able to decide such an issue either free of the physical limitations imposed by brain function.

Click to expand...

Forget excusing the mentally incapable, there is a more fundamental flaw in this. I thought god gave us free will. I thought that meant he gave free will to ALL of us.
Why did god choose to give free will only to a selected few? What about the handicapped, don't they get free will? If not, why not?

riley2112 said:

the answer is in the bible and no , they are not destined to hell. A person is condemned for rejecting Jesus Christ and for refusing to believe in Him: "He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God" (John 3:18). An infant is not capable of rejecting Jesus Christ. An infant is incapable of committing the sin mentioned in John 16:9. As are the mental. Those who go to hell in 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 are those who have deliberately disobeyed the gospel by refusing to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.Not that I believe in Hell as the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

I see, and what does 'being condemned' entail?

FlyingTeaPot said:

I see, and what does 'being condemned' entail?

Click to expand...

don't know. Some christians say one thing some christians say another. I have found that the bible just says you die. I guess that means no living forever. So as to what being condemned means would depend on who you ask. Which makes no sense to me. but then again, who am I?
Here is what the bible says. but then you already knew that , didn't you? “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23)

FlyingTeaPot said:

Well? Are they? What if they are incapable of accepting Jesus as their personal savior? Are they saved anyway or are they destined for hell?

Click to expand...

No, they are not. One of the conditions of final judgement will be that we will know what we did wrong and that we were still unrepentant for committing it. The mentally challenged don't know any better. From an eternal perspective, this is not a bad way to spend just a blip of one's existence.

Well, the bible teaches us that such people actually have demons inside them... so I am guessing that a literal interpretation is not what you are after?

Unless we allow for reduced capacity or competence, then it would suggest they all go to hell; however this has also been raised as an issue for children and for those never exposed to information about the existence of christianity, personally I like the answer I was given by a man at a coptic monastry: that god will judge us based on the truth revealed to us as an individual. That would mean that those people with less capacity or opportunity to learn of the Christian teachings would be held to a different standard by god.

FlyingTeaPot said:

Well? Are they? What if they are incapable of accepting Jesus as their personal savior? Are they saved anyway or are they destined for hell?

Click to expand...

the judgment of God is always based on a persons own 'willful' behavior.

So we can trust fully that God will not judge a person who does not have the ability to make informed decisions about their life or conduct. They are in Gods hands and he will do what is right.

FlyingTeaPot said:

Well? Are they? What if they are incapable of accepting Jesus as their personal savior? Are they saved anyway or are they destined for hell?

Click to expand...

Same question goes for babies - which comes down to the Baptist / Menanite beliefs of believers baptism - where only accountable individuals are held to making and keeping covenants etc. etc. vs. those who subscribe to infant/baby baptism (which insinuates that little babies go to hell if they are not baptised)...

Mormons are in the Menanite/believers baptism camp. I went to a Menanite museum up near Chicago where they taught that infant baptism was a practice instituted by the combined church/state in order to collect taxes. It seems the pessants were hiding their children in order to avoid paying taxes on extra people, so the church told them their children would go to hell unless they presented them to the church for baptism (during which their names were recorded by the tax collectors)...

You know this scripture?

(New Testament | Matthew 19:13 - 15)
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

there are some who say some things have been removed from the above verses ... that the original read as follows:

(New Testament | Matthew 19:13 - 15)
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, (laying on of hands to recieve the Holy Ghost - part of the baptismal ordinance) and pray: and the disciples rebuked them saying, There is no need, for Jesus hath said, Such shall be saved.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them (and blessed them, but did not baptise them), and departed thence.

wiki has a nice article on believer's baptism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believer%27s_baptism

History

Defenders of infant baptism have attempted to trace the practice to the New Testament era, but generally acknowledge that no unambiguous evidence exists that the practice existed prior to the 2nd century.[4] The oldest surviving manual of church discipline, the Didache, envisions the baptism of adults. Advocates of believer's baptism contend that non-Biblical records are not authoritative, and that no evidence exists from the Bible or early Christian literature that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles.
Another argument posed by some advocates of believer's baptism focuses on the fact that most churches that practice infant baptism were churches that were heavily intertwined with the state in medieval and Reformation-era Europe. In many instances, citizens of a nation were required under penalty of law to belong to the state church. Infant baptism marked the infant as a citizen of the nation and a loyal subject of the reigning political order as much as it marked the infant as a Christian. To denominations like the Baptists, which have historically stressed religious liberty, toleration, and separation of church and state, this practice is an unacceptable violation of the basic human right to self-determination in matters of spirituality and religion; but this argument does little to dissuade the many pedobaptistic churches today which are, as in the United States and most other Western nations, unburdened by any compulsion to baptize anyone because of a governmental demand.

Click to expand...

with or without all of the history/scriptures etc. etc. just think of it logicially. God is just, God is loving - of coarse He would not condemn innocent children or handicapped people to hell... God really is loving and just, if there is someting preached that contradicts that you can know that it is not true doctrine.

Pegg said:

the judgment of God is always based on a persons own 'willful' behavior.

So we can trust fully that God will not judge a person who does not have the ability to make informed decisions about their life or conduct. They are in Gods hands and he will do what is right.

Click to expand...

exactly!

(New Testament | Luke12:47 - 48)
47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and cprepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

we are judged based on what we know.

swamplizard said:

Who, amongst us, is not mentally challenged?

Click to expand...

Threads don´t tend to have winners.

I say we make an exception.

That question is definetely the winner´s answer.

*frubals*