The Christian Missionary and the Inuit Man

[Brickjectivity]

Fishing? You're the one who said it. I just didn't feel like letting it pass.

I don't really understand this picking and choosing of parts of the bible you like or don't. I understand different interpretations, Even cultural differences, But simply denying scripture? That I don't understand. And the bible isn't exactly vague about hell.

Then you wave the honour of overlooking the insult? That is another thing they don't teach Christians these days: conversational tactics. Lets pursue it though. Did I really insult you or are you just pulling my leg to make some kind of point? Obviously I really do think that a compassionate and honest person cannot handle the concept of an infinite loving being who torments people eternally with fire. That is what I wish to convey, that the compassion opposes the eternal torment and the honest forces recognizing the paradox of torture and love in the same being.

 

[Sabour]

Here is a link of why I think not all "Christians" must preach

[youtube]rPR48pP8Tbk[/youtube]
Gary Miller - Christianty and Islam - YouTube

Start from minute 14

 

[Mister Emu]

lol, Mister Emu, it is, essentially, just a joke, and is not meant to portray an entirely accurate description of Christianity.

The good ole "It's just a joke"... If it isn't even meant to accurately portray Christianity then why believe it is interesting to discuss?

I think the main point it illustrates is showing, IMO, the coercive nature of the idea of "hell", and the potential for using the Christian beliefs, as a whole, in a coercive manner for the purposes of proselytization.

You can't coerce someone to believe something...

That's interesting, because, in my experience, many Christians do make claims about the hell-ward trajectory of people they disagree with or those who act/behave in ways that they judge/assess to be unacceptable according to their interpretation of scripture/doctrine.

They would then be making a failed distinction. The scriptures list many actions and even thoughts that are described as leading to damnation, but we are warned against judging people.

Or perhaps it is sometimes the observer that fails to make the distinction.

"That is the path to hell" is not the same as "You are going to hell".

If we extend this notion out, doesn't it mean that Christians should support the killing of all fetuses?

Except no Christian Church of note teaches this notion.

No, we're pointing out something in Christian theology that doesn't make any sense.

Except it isn't part of Christian theology.

Can you give an example of what you're talking about? It certainly isn't a misrepresentation to claim that many Christians believe one must hear and reject the Word in order to risk hell. I've known many Christians who argued that those who never heard the gospel will not be judged.

Name one major Christian Church that has this as an espoused doctrine, please. In all my interactions with almost every form of Christianity in the U.S. I've not once, outside of non-Christian misrepresentation, heard this said.

My point is you like attacking Christian fundamentalist thinking because it's easy to criticize.

Except this isn't something fundamentalists are taught.

Instead of attacking us, why don't you don't you focus on the argument?

They did, this is all the focus the argument needs "It is a strawman that doesn't accurately represent Christian thought."

 

[George-ananda]

They did, this is all the focus the argument needs "It is a strawman that doesn't accurately represent Christian thought."

My thoughts too

However, I thought the story was still good for a chuckle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Name one major Christian Church that has this as an espoused doctrine, please. In all my interactions with almost every form of Christianity in the U.S. I've not once, outside of non-Christian misrepresentation, heard this said.

I don't study the doctrine of Christian denominations. I just listen to Christians when they discuss their beliefs.

Just to be clear: You're arguing that Christians hold that all non-believers are going to hell, whether they have heard the gospel or whether not?

Everyone who lived before the gospels is going to hell... is what you think Christianity exclusively teaches?

 

[Mister Emu]

Just to be clear: You're arguing that Christians hold that all non-believers are going to hell, whether they have heard the gospel or whether not?

Nope.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nope.

Well, OK. If you don't want to explain why I've got this business wrong, you certainly don't hafta.

 

[Mister Emu]

Well, OK. If you don't want to explain why I've got this business wrong, you certainly don't hafta.

I already explained why you have it wrong... it isn't representative of Christian thought.

If, on the other hand, you are asking what Christian thought on the subject actually is...

Well it varies, because nothing in the Sacred Tradition clearly spells it out. Some Churches teach that God judges based on your conscience(their understanding of the law written on one's heart), others teach that God will bestow mercy upon those who strive to find Him but cannot, those who acted in good faith to find the truth. Some believe that after death there will be an opportunity for all those who did not have a chance in life to accept God.

Some do indeed believe that everyone who does not hear and believe will burn.

 

[Brickjectivity]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/sermons.sinners.htm

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Calvinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First Great Awakening - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are links to information about Jonathan Edwards, and the "Great Awakening" mentioned in both the ACE and Abeka Christian home school curriculums. There is a link to the wikipedia article on Calvinism. Until fairly recently most US Christian ministers preached that everyone was going to hell except for specific people, that all people were essentially depraved and that it was a very simple, reasonable matter for God to condemn any human individual to an eternity in flames. This thing is what a lot of people eventually rejected, some outright, others finding slightly different ways of explaining it or modifying it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I already explained why you have it wrong... it isn't representative of Christian thought.

Except I never claimed that it was representative of Christian thought. I did say that many Christians believe it, which -- if I trust my ears -- is a true statement.

If, on the other hand, you are asking what Christian thought on the subject actually is...

Yes, I'm asking for your personal opinion about that. I already have my own personal opinion.

Well it varies, because nothing in the Sacred Tradition clearly spells it out.

Really, the Christians I know don't care a whit about Sacred Tradition. They just grab a Bible and go to theologizing.

Some Churches teach that God judges based on your conscience(their understanding of the law written on one's heart), others teach that God will bestow mercy upon those who strive to find Him but cannot, those who acted in good faith to find the truth. Some believe that after death there will be an opportunity for all those who did not have a chance in life to accept God.

You must come from some place where Christians are formally divided into official denominations, with members who follow creeds? I see you're from Kentucky. Do you have such formal categorizations there?

Some do indeed believe that everyone who does not hear and believe will burn.

Sure. And as I've noted, some believe that anyone who doesn't hear will be spared hell. I'm still not sure why that fact seems to put you off somehow.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that Jesus said something similar to what you're saying. I can't remember the exact verse but he basically said that if you hadn't heard him, you're sinless. But if you had, you're convicted of your sins.

Oh, here it is: John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.

So you make a good point. Why make people sinners by even telling them about Christ? Apparently the people who have never heard of Christianity were better off.

Another problem:
People are always telling me about this or that religious message, & that one must accept it or face eternal damnation, with the writhing & the screaming & the poking & the lake of fire. If no single message is more evidenced than the other mutually contradictory messages, then what's a poor heathen to do? To reject'm all seems the only logical path. I wonder....would their god consider this equivalent to never hearing the message? Or am I required under penalty of eternal torment to guess which message is the true one, pretend to sincerely believe it, & take my chances?

 

[Mister Emu]

Yes, I'm asking for your personal opinion about that. I already have my own personal opinion.

Opinions can be informed or uninformed.

Really, the Christians I know don't care a whit about Sacred Tradition. They just grab a Bible and go to theologizing.

The Bible is part of Sacred Tradition.

You must come from some place where Christians are formally divided into official denominations, with members who follow creeds? I see you're from Kentucky. Do you have such formal categorizations there?

Where I live, in Louisville, yes... we tend to. We have two different denominational(Southern Baptist and Presbyterian) seminaries, and are a Catholic Archdiocese. We also have large populations of other denominations and a non-denominational presence too.

For the most part, I meant individual churches though and what the community believes. It isn't codified in Tradition, so there is no set belief in general.

Except I never claimed that it was representative of Christian thought. I did say that many Christians believe it, which -- if I trust my ears -- is a true statement.

I'm still not sure why that fact seems to put you off somehow.

Well it was portrayed as part of Christian Theology(it isn't), you said using this notion that Christians should be in favour of killing fetuses, etc. It was treated as if this was a mainstream or widely held belief...

If anyone believes, and I'm not convinced they do, it is such a miniscule number as to be irrelevant, like Westboro Baptist, only without the visibility so even less so.

I guess I am a little put off... because I do hear this often, only its sole source is misrepresentation by non-Christians. Not once after service in any of the churches I've been to, not once in any of the Bible studies or cross-denominational discussions, or in any internet discussion has a Christian ever espoused this.

Given my experience with Christians of all stripes I tend to believe that people have misunderstood or misheard something along the lines of "God won't condemn someone for not hearing the gospel"(a common sentiment) to "God won't condmen someone who hasn't hear the gospel".

 

[Desert Snake]

On my thread 'who should/shouldn't convert to Christianity', the opinions seemed largely unanimous, only people who want to.
So, it's sort of a moot point anyway.

 

[thau]

The following is an old joke, but an illustrative one, IMO.

It seems clear that the unspoken answer to the Inuit fellow's last question would have been "In order to utilize your fear and ignorance so that I could convert you." (or something to that effect)

I think it's an interesting way to look at things. Wouldn't it have been better had the Inuk (means "individual Inuit man/woman" - I grew up surrounded by Inuit) never been exposed to such beliefs, especially if Christianity's perspective was valid? Isn't spreading such ideas inherently coercive?

What do you think about this joke and its implications?

On its surface it’s a legitimate retort and somewhat disarming. But that is providing the premise is entirely true. Somehow I do not think those who never knew God are exempt from culpability.

Anyway, the larger question to me is then: Why would God bother creating man in the first place if He had nothing to say to them, and consequently, have them wondering the earth clueless? Is there any meaningful merit in that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well it was portrayed as part of Christian Theology(it isn't),

I don't really believe in Christian theology as some kind of fixed 'thing'. I've known Christians (at least people who asserted their Christianity) who have held such variant beliefs that about the only thing common to them were the words 'Jesus' and 'Bible'.

Which is natural. Everyone has his own theology, at least ever since the Inquisition stopped its efforts at standardization.

So apparently you and I have different views of even the existence of Christian theology.

...you said using this notion that Christians should be in favour of killing fetuses, etc. It was treated as if this was a mainstream or widely held belief...

Putting aside how many Christians might believe it, do you agree that it necessarily follows? If we think fetuses will all get a pass directly to heaven, and that some will suffer hell if they are born... that it might be right to terminate them before birth?

That's what I'm interested in. The argument, not the number of Christians who might embrace such beliefs.

Given my experience with Christians of all stripes I tend to believe that people have misunderstood or misheard something along the lines of "God won't condemn someone for not hearing the gospel"(a common sentiment) to "God won't condmen someone who hasn't hear the gospel".

I'm sorry but I really don't understand. What is the difference in meaning between those two statements?

 

[Alceste]

Fishing? You're the one who said it. I just didn't feel like letting it pass.

I don't really understand this picking and choosing of parts of the bible you like or don't. I understand different interpretations, Even cultural differences, But simply denying scripture? That I don't understand. And the bible isn't exactly vague about hell.

You pick and choose yourself, so yes, you do understand it.

 

[Thana]

You pick and choose yourself, so yes, you do understand it.

Lol.
You just really enjoy stirring the pot don't you?

 

[viole]

Fishing? You're the one who said it. I just didn't feel like letting it pass.

I don't really understand this picking and choosing of parts of the bible you like or don't. I understand different interpretations, Even cultural differences, But simply denying scripture? That I don't understand. And the bible isn't exactly vague about hell.

Well, it isn't vague about stoning children, exterminating women, children, and pets among other things, either.

And if this is just a cultural thing or some sort of out-of-context interpretation, what makes you think that we cannot apply the same indulgence to the concept of hell?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thana]

Well, it isn't vague about stoning children, exterminating women, children, and pets among other things, either.

And if this is just a cultural thing or some sort of out-of-context interpretation, what makes you think that we cannot apply the same indulgence to the concept of hell?

Ciao

- viole

How can Hell be deemed cultural?

Sure, It can be up for interpretation. But to dismiss the concept entirely? I cannot even begin to fathom the mental gymnastics one would have to undertake to completely dismiss a literal hell.

Those examples you gave are easily thrown into the cultural basket, And to some Jews, The interpretation basket.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I cannot even begin to fathom the mental gymnastics one would have to undertake to completely dismiss a literal hell.

Are you suggesting that I perform mental gymnastics?