The Christian Missionary and the Inuit Man

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not what I'm saying...


I guess we'll have to disagree, because I think we can take the, for lack of a better term, accepted thoughts of a group and also identify outliers. I'm not trying to act in the spirit of no true scotsman, but I think that a thought needs to have some significance or impact for it to be considered part of a group ideology.

For instance, John Shelby Spong, calling himself Christian, has claimed we need to abandon theism and a literal understanding of Christ's divinity, or the Westboro Baptist Church which claims that God hates homosexuals. Both are claims of avowed Christians, neither of which should be considered part of Christian understanding, because they do not reflect, in any meaningful manner, the thoughts of Christians in any meaningful number.

I disagree. I think they should both be considered part of the spectrum of Christian theology. They're not representative of anything that's believed by ALL Christians, but I would struggle to find any tenet of Christianity that was.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have to be honest and say I would rather it be unnecessary to do so... but I've found it entirely necessary because of threads like this where Christianity/Christian theology is misrepresented and then maligned.

OK, but I think that is the cause of your misunderstanding of my position here. I wasn't talking about 'standard Christian theology' when I spoke about a particular hell-belief. I don't even believe in standard Christian theology. I was only talking about 'people who call themselves Christians and believe in that particular hell-belief'.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I disagree. I think they should both be considered part of the spectrum of Christian theology. They're not representative of anything that's believed by ALL Christians, but I would struggle to find any tenet of Christianity that was.

Yes. I grew up Christian, have paid the price to be Christian. The moment that I disagree about beliefs other Christians want to tell me I'm no longer a part of their community? No, that is not ok. Have I tried to change other Christians? No, I have not. Cult style leadership wants to make everything into a head-game about believing in them, and right now Christianity is flooded with cult style leadership. That is why they want to make membership into something based upon believing what they say should be believed, because its a power trip.

 

[Mister Emu]

I disagree. I think they should both be considered part of the spectrum of Christian theology. They're not representative of anything that's believed by ALL Christians, but I would struggle to find any tenet of Christianity that was.

The problem isn't whether all Christians believe it... you are correct, you'd have a hard time finding those...

The issue is, I have a stake in the misunderstandings that arise from the ramblings of prophets and provocateurs being considered "Christianity"... and I have an obligation to do my best to prevent those misunderstandings.

This thread is a great example. Aside from one guy that everyone dismissed this discussion was populated with people saying that the joke in the thread presented "the Christian position", "Christian Theology", and I can't count the number of times I've had to address the "shouldn't Christian logically want to kill babies" question... all arising from a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Christianity.

OK, but I think that is the cause of your misunderstanding of my position here.

It wasn't solely you... and before I came there was a noticeable lack of qualifiers... something like "however miniscule the population of those that believe this may be"...

 

[viole]

Well of course a gnostic atheist is going to say that! Perhaps you're only saying that, because you're a gnostic atheist (as it says in your 'Religion' entry on your profile). I will pose the same challenge to you that Thana posed to me but more directly: Are you Christian?

Of course not.

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem isn't whether all Christians believe it... you are correct, you'd have a hard time finding those...

The issue is, I have a stake in the misunderstandings that arise from the ramblings of prophets and provocateurs being considered "Christianity"... and I have an obligation to do my best to prevent those misunderstandings.

This thread is a great example. Aside from one guy that everyone dismissed this discussion was populated with people saying that the joke in the thread presented "the Christian position", "Christian Theology", and I can't count the number of times I've had to address the "shouldn't Christian logically want to kill babies" question... all arising from a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Christianity.

I'm not sure how it could be a misunderstanding of Christianity to assume that Christians believe that God is just. That's the premise that leads to the implication that God won't damn people who never had an opportunity to become Christian or children who are too young to understand "sin".

AFAICT, the reasons to evangelize to people who have never heard of Jesus or to not kill children before the age of reason is that you think God has commanded you to evangelize and not to kil people.

You can say that it's "Christian" to evangelize, but I don't think you can argue that it's consistent that the person you're evangelizing to is going to be any better off because of your efforts.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not sure how it could be a misunderstanding of Christianity to assume that Christians believe that God is just. That's the premise that leads to the implication that God won't damn people who never had an opportunity to become Christian or children who are too young to understand "sin".

Even you are under the same misapprehension... as I said, it is very pervasive amongst non-Christians...

No, there is no logical connection of necessity between justice and a demand that every person who never heard of Jesus receive salvation.

Many Christians believe that justice and an opportunity are connected... but that is not the same thing.

AFAICT, the reasons to evangelize to people who have never heard of Jesus or to not kill children before the age of reason is that you think God has commanded you to evangelize and not to kil people.

That is because you aren't thinking very logically from the stand point of a Christian in the justice model of salvation where death as a non-Christian is at best an unsure proposition and at worst a sure sentence to eternity in hell.

 

[Mister Emu]

The moment that I disagree about beliefs other Christians want to tell me I'm no longer a part of their community? No, that is not ok.

You may not find it okay, but it is based in both Biblical and historic tradition... excommunication, as a call to reform, is the prescribed method for handling heretical beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even you are under the same misapprehension... as I said, it is very pervasive amongst non-Christians...

No, there is no logical connection of necessity between justice and a demand that every person who never heard of Jesus receive salvation.

Many Christians believe that justice and an opportunity are connected... but that is not the same thing.

The logical connection of necessity is between justice and the notion that without culpability, punishment can't be justified, and there is no culpability when a person had no way to know what the "right" course of action was.

That is because you aren't thinking very logically from the stand point of a Christian in the justice model of salvation where death as a non-Christian is at best an unsure proposition and at worst a sure sentence to eternity in hell.

I'm thinking logically provided we keep in mind two things that I think most Christians would agree with:

- many people who are evangelized to don't become Christian.
- death as a Christian is also an unsure proposition as well, since many who profess the Christian faith end up not fulfilling the requirements for salvation (by dying in a state of mortal sin, for instance).

Edit: do you agree that someone who has not become a Christian because of invincible ignorance cannot die in a state of mortal sin, but a Christian can?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You may not find it okay, but it is based in both Biblical and historic tradition... excommunication, as a call to reform, is the prescribed method for handling heretical beliefs.

... but when excommunication, anathemas, declarations of "heresy", etc. are directed at other major elements of the Christian community, I don't think they're valuable for determining what constitutes "the Christian community".

I mean, a significant percentage of Protestants belong to denominations that still hold as a matter of faith that the Pope is the antichrist. Until recently, the Orthodox churches considered the Catholic Pope to be anathema (and some of them still do). Are we supposed to take these as declarations that the Catholic Church isn't a legitimate part of the Christian community?

Frankly, from where I sit, it seems like it's almost a prerequisite for membership in the Christian community that some other part of that same Christian community considers you a heretic.

 

[Mister Emu]

The logical connection of necessity is between justice and the notion that without culpability, punishment can't be justified, and there is no culpability when a person had no way to know what the "right" course of action was.

Hypothetically, they wouldn't then be judged for not accepting Jesus... which still leaves a whole life's worth of actions to consider.

Or you could view it like our law does and people unable to give proper consideration to their actions are deemed a special class and have get lighter punishments or special care... like medieval Catholics and Limbo... which still isn't salvation.

I'm thinking logically provided we keep in mind two things that I think most Christians would agree with:

- many people who are evangelized to don't become Christian.
- death as a Christian is also an unsure proposition as well, since many who profess the Christian faith end up not fulfilling the requirements for salvation (by dying in a state of mortal sin, for instance).

I don't think many people agree with the thrust of the second proposition, that death as a Christian is an unsure proposition.

For the first... and? If you believe that everyone who hasn't accepted will face damnation, you cannot possibly lead to their state being worse by evangelizing, they can only get better.

Even if you believe that people who don't know have an uncertain future and that anyone who has heard and rejected will surely face damnation, you haven't necessarily made their station worse, you've only actualized the potential in their decision-making. Also, even if they reject, you have given them the opportunity to see God in their lives and come to the faith at a later date.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hypothetically, they wouldn't then be judged for not accepting Jesus... which still leaves a whole life's worth of actions to consider.

Or you could view it like our law does and people unable to give proper consideration to their actions are deemed a special class and have get lighter punishments or special care... like medieval Catholics and Limbo... which still isn't salvation.

... or purgatory, which still ends up with Heaven.

I don't think many people agree with the thrust of the second proposition, that death as a Christian is an unsure proposition.

Frankly, I'd say that this is a central tenet of the Christian faith. As Jesus said in the Gospels, "not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

So do you not believe in mortal sin? Or do you just not think that Christians can commit it?

For the first... and? If you believe that everyone who hasn't accepted will face damnation, you cannot possibly lead to their state being worse by evangelizing, they can only get better.

Do you believe this? IIRC, this goes against Catholic doctrine.

Offhand, the only Christians who I can think of who would believe something like this are the Calvinists, but they have other issues (e.g. why evangelize at all if everyone is already predestined to either Heaven or Hell?)

Even if you believe that people who don't know have an uncertain future and that anyone who has heard and rejected will surely face damnation, you haven't necessarily made their station worse, you've only actualized the potential in their decision-making. Also, even if they reject, you have given them the opportunity to see God in their lives and come to the faith at a later date.

If you believe that "invincible ignorance" is real, then at the very least, you've deprived them of one potential safeguard for their salvation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Using Catholic theology as an example, I think that the only real defensible reason to evangelize to people who don't know Christ is because the Church teaches that Christ told his followers to do it. I don't think a coherent case can be made that the people being evangelized to will necessarily be better off.

... and IMO, this is the approach taken in the Catechism. There are several sections where it talks about something that implies that evangelism might have bad effects, but it's always careful to close with something to the effect of "nevertheless, we should do it because God says so."

 

[Brickjectivity]

You may not find it okay, but it is based in both Biblical and historic tradition... excommunication, as a call to reform, is the prescribed method for handling heretical beliefs.

Excommunication is personal. Systemic excommunication is perverse.

 

[Mister Emu]

... or purgatory, which still ends up with Heaven.

Purgatory is for those already saved...

Frankly, I'd say that this is a central tenet of the Christian faith. As Jesus said in the Gospels, "not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

So do you not believe in mortal sin? Or do you just not think that Christians can commit it?

I'd say anyone who is Christian will not be in an unrepentant state of mortal sin when they die.

Do you believe this

No, I do not.

If you believe that "invincible ignorance" is real, then at the very least, you've deprived them of one potential safeguard for their salvation.

Invincible ignorance isn't about whether you've been exposed to the Gospel, nor is it a guarantee. There is only one promise made to man for salvation.

and IMO, this is the approach taken in the Catechism. There are several sections where it talks about something that implies that evangelism might have bad effects, but it's always careful to close with something to the effect of "nevertheless, we should do it because God says so."

I can't recall those from my readings... would you care to provide?