Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to God needs to outsource the distribution of his word
Phew, survived that round . . .
but conceding nothing regarding the 67%. If you have a buddhist who is searching with all his or her whole being for truth, and has only ever heard of Buddhism, would he/she go to heaven? Good question. I don't have that answer, but that is where I believe it is God who knows and judges our innermost thoughts and who, I believe, will be the epitome of justice in the end.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 3:38 PM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - that's a little better in terms of a comment
The word "saturated", is for lack of a better word, a way of describing that the world demographic in terms of percentage breakdown of religious beliefs is not going to change dramatically. At least not while on the current trajectory or without some unforeseen event taking place. The biggest single factor in the growth of all religions, in this day and age, now that the influence of colonization is no longer a factor, are birth rates. Or people being born into their respective religions. Conversion to a different religion via the influence of missionary endeavours, despite what people like to believe, is not going to change this world demographic to any noticeable degree.
Based on this reality, it is a fair statement to suggest that the Christian religions, who have as their central icon, the saviour and alleged son of God in Jesus Christ, cannot possibly be the conduit to save all of the human race. It is either accepting this concession, or 67% of the human race is damned from birth. But then you close off by in effect arguing this point for me. If there are people in heaven that have never heard of Jesus Christ, he can no longer be described as the one true path to heaven.
posted by
gomedome
on July 4, 2006 at 1:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, I was referring to YOUR comment which I will quote
"The version of the word of God that holds Jesus Christ as being the Son of God is now at nearly complete global saturation" -- using your terms when talking about the Gospel. I have no problem with your percentages of 33%/67%. What I merely found odd was seeing you refer to the global saturation of the message "of the word of God that holds Jesus Christ as being the Son of God" -- when you have argued in the past, with some degree of angst (or such was my impression, but perhaps "attitude" would be a better word) wondering how a loving God or a just God could condemn to hell those who've never heard the Gospel. My bone of contention was your use of the word "saturated."
"My contention that there are countless people that have been born onto this planet that have never heard of Jesus Christ is a logical refutation to the notion as advanced by many a Christian; of salvation via Jesus Christ as being the one true path to heaven. What of those people? Do they miss their chance at heaven simply because of the timing of their birth or geographical circumstance?" -- Regarding these concerns -- that's why I quoted that verse from Romans. I believe what the Bible says that people are able to be persuaded in a higher being, a Creator, simply by observing creation. I believe, consequently, that there will be people in heaven who HAVE NEVER HEARD THE GOSPEL, yet will be there because they simply accepted the testimony of creation.
But for those who HAVE heard the Gospel, I still say it's about the choices we make -- you've made yours, I've made mine and one choice I have made is to believe the God of the Bible. I don't say that with arrogance or disdain, but as a simple fact. If you choose to believe otherwise about my attitude ABOUT my beliefs, then I'm sorry to come across that way. Am I confident? Sure. Arrogant? Certainly not my intentions. And for sure it is not my place to judge the spiritual beliefs of others.
Of course, I also accept the fact that all of this reasoning is suspect since perhaps 67% (give or take a number of percentage points) don't believe that the Bible is God's holy word for the entire world!
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 11:46 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70, I think your comments -- that post -- were appropriate.
A hard pill to swallow, but certainly appropriate, and definitely written in the right spirit.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 11:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Janes
That's okay, no hard feelings, I guess we all get carried away in the heat of the moment.
I think my reputation for respect for Christians and their beliefs is pretty well known by now. It's ironic really that recently I came under some opprobrium from Christians for taking them to task for their bad writing, on the ground that it is disrespectful to their God, and their religion.
Funny old world, isn't it?LOL
posted by
ariel70
on July 4, 2006 at 11:30 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70, I made a blanket generalization which was in error.
For sure you have never come out swinging that I am aware. I should have been a little more specific.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 11:20 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - we have to forgive these people
After a lifetime of conditioning by their families, communities and peers, they have no idea how offensive they are to people who do not share their beliefs. It is a one way street with them, they attempt to demand respect but think nothing at all of making some of the comments we see routinely.
posted by
gomedome
on July 4, 2006 at 10:36 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion -- it's a post - not a comment on someone else's blog
The difference being that reading it is proactive. You don't have to do so if it bothers you. If you do choose to read my posts and want to attempt to refute what I am saying, it helps if you understand what is being said. Angst? ...in reference to your previous comment. That's a ridiculous thing to say. My contention that there are countless people that have been born onto this planet that have never heard of Jesus Christ is a logical refutation to the notion as advanced by many a Christian; of salvation via Jesus Christ as being the one true path to heaven. What of those people? Do they miss their chance at heaven simply because of the timing of their birth or geographical circumstance?
The part you seem not to be getting is that the bible is your holy book, it is not mine. If you find offence in the use of figures such as the 33% that I used in this posting, please go be offended somewhere else. This figure is only as accurate an estimate as we have but it represents a truthful approximate breakdown of the world's religious beliefs. I can't help, nor do I care that it blows up notions such as the supposed son of God dying for the sins of mankind. Nor do those who comprise the remaining 67% or so much care either.
posted by
gomedome
on July 4, 2006 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion
I have to say that I resent your swipe at " you atheists and agnostics..." of whom I am of course one. There is no such thing as this, for like believers, we all vary enormously in our lack of belief in God or gods.
I have never come out swining, but instead I invariably stick closely to the point/s raised, and frame any rebuttal or comment in a courteous fashion. I have never gratuittously offended anyone in here.
It has been my experience that the type of irrational and dismissve -- even arrogant -- attitudes to which you refer, ten to come more from Christians than non-believers. This is sad but true
posted by
ariel70
on July 4, 2006 at 10:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Excuse me? Faulty logic? Dripping with disdain?
My one mistake is the choice of words "belief in God." I should have said "belief in Jesus Christ." You're right -- when talking about world religions -- there's a difference.
But for crying out loud. I was stating what I believe to be true. There was nothing disdainful about what I said. Rather, my tone was matter of fact. Geez oh pete.
You should go back and read your post, Gomedome, and tell me if THAT wasn't "dripping with disdain." It never ceases to amaze me how you agnostics and atheists can come out swinging, filled with anger and venom against Christians, but when we respond in any way in opposition, we are accused of being "dripping with disdain."
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 9:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome and all the others in here
Hot damn! It'd be a hell of a lot easier if you all studied " The Fun side of Atheism", by Ariel.
WE could have a ball. Preferably here in Spain. In a church, maybe?
posted by
ariel70
on July 4, 2006 at 8:34 AM
| link to this | reply
JanesOpinion - I'm sorry but your comment is so full of disconnected
assumptions and faulty logic that I cannot even respond to it.
A perfect example: I did not say that only 33% of the world believe in God.
A suggestion: change your attitude, we've had this go round before where your comments are dripping with disdain. I'm fed up with it.
posted by
gomedome
on July 4, 2006 at 8:29 AM
| link to this | reply
It's all about choices we make.
If, what you say is true -- "The version of the word of God that holds Jesus Christ as being the Son of God is now at nearly complete global saturation. Sure there are some countries that have had closed borders for a few decades with politics interfering with the dissemination of this word but it's safe to say that most people on this planet are aware of who Jesus Christ was" -- and the Gospel has saturated the world, then it would seem some of your past and present arguments are somewhat futile. You seem to have an ongoing angst for those people who will die not hearing about the Gospel and yet you say the world is now saturated. So which is it?
Yes, God cares, but leaves it up to us to make the choice. And, as you frequently like to point out, only 33% choose belief in God. I don't think God is in the business of arm twisting.
However, for those who have not actually heard the Gospel (and I believe there are still a number who have not) and are unable even to make an "educated choice," here are a few verses to ponder:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:18-20).
What this tells me is that, even for those who never hear the Gospel, their observations as to the extraordinary complexity and beauty of creation should point to some sort of intelligent and powerful Creator. That understand alone will lead to some degree of belief, which, I believe God will honor. As I have said ad nauseum, it is God who knows our hearts, who judges our thoughts. He will justly care for those who have never heard the Gospel and yet believe what they see in God's creation.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on July 4, 2006 at 7:32 AM
| link to this | reply
gome
They just really weren't evolved enough to get the real messages that Jesus was trying to give them.
If they had, it would be a much better world today.
I'm starting to think more and more that these early Christians were under the impression that this world wasn't going to last very long.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on July 3, 2006 at 6:27 PM
| link to this | reply
GD, maybe we should just return to the doctines of John Calvin. Who gets saved are only a very select few and their identity is all predetermined....what exactly would be the point of that? 
Samhain_Moon 
posted by
syzygy
on July 3, 2006 at 5:59 PM
| link to this | reply
like the new look for this blog
in response to the last line of the post. Any fool who believes themselves to better than someone else just because they believe themselves to be saved is just that: a fool, and no better if not worse of than someone is is not " saved".
posted by
calmcantey75
on July 3, 2006 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply