Questioning morality

This is a new topic I open up by transferring a post I made elsewhere to here.I propose a plausible moral dilemma using the idea that God only allows for people who are "saved in christ" as some have suggested.You are the father/mother of a child who is raped by a close relative or friend and your child grows up into adulthood rejecting your beliefs and never does accept christ into their lives and,despondent from the rape, subsequently commits suicide. During the course of their lives the close friend /relative does choose christ to enter into their lives and to the day he/she dies does good deeds.
By the conditions stated could you as a believer in christ accept existence in heaven with the person who raped your child while your child is in hell?Where do christians hold their morals when it comes to this kind of choice?

Yes.
If this person is in heaven, this means they truely repented and gave themselves up to the Lord. "Your child" was given a chance. They walked away, and that was the choice they made, heaven or hell, they choose.
Everyone makes mistakes in their lives. If repented they are forgiven. God's love is unconditional, he won't reject you into heaven if you truely are "saved".

What does it matter . Judgement is not for us, but for Christ, so as a christian I have absolutely no idea who or who is not damned. One thing I do know is I trust God.It's funny that you have came up with this hypothetical argument. The people of Jesus' day also posed similar hypothetical 'tests'. For e.g. the brothers who died and took the same wife.lol.

And what about Native Americans, who never even heard of Christ until after missionaries arrived? Were they, for more than a millenium, being born just to be damned?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Barlowgirl and MTW. My question was could YOU live with your child not being in heaven while the man/woman who raped him/her was.You might pause to wonder if having been raped did not weigh in the decision to commit suicide.[This message has been edited by sidelined, 10-16-2003]

I don't have a child. And when you DEEPLY trust God you don't worry too much about these hypothetical questions.

Then is this a hypothetical situation on morals which you may enter?

Is this morality?
The question about feeling guilty in heaven - well I choose to trust God's judgement.

When you have children think back to this post and see if you have the same point of view.

Fair enough,I guess I am unqualified for the discussion, so to speak.

Your hypothetical situation is precisely the reason I am now an atheist. As young kid, I refused to believe good people went to hell and rapists, murderers, paedophiles, etc. went to heaven if they gave themselves to Christ.If I was still a Christian, I would probably have similar beliefs as Mike.As for my child being hurt in such a way... that SOB had better hope the cops found him first because I'd kill him myself. No second thoughts.Before having a child, I didn't understand why parents of murdered children (especially school shootings) wanted to sue the police, the teachers, the school district, etc. Now I do. I don't necessarily think it's the right thing to do, but I understand where the need comes from.I forgot to add that I believe it is often the death of a child that has tested the faith of thousands. My grandmother never recovered from the death of her 24 year old son and blamed god till the day she died - 35 years later.[This message has been edited by roxrkool, 10-15-2003]

Hmmm.... so now we are switching saying a man raped my pretend "child"? Oh ok, I guess I'm incapable of understanding what you really were trying to argue about. Anyways... yes, I could live with that, for the reasons I already stated. I do trust God's judgement, if the person is in heaven, its because they deserve to be there. If my "child" is in Hell, than they made that decision thereselves.
As for your Native American statement. How are you so sure they didn't worship the same God we do, only in other forms as well. Besides, God states in his Bible that he is all around you. Just look, and you shall see, of course it won't be so obvious. However, most of you need evidence that you can conduct experiments on, so I won't bother trying to explain why I think God's all around.

That's a fine sentiment BG, I have no problem with that. But many say that you have to believe in Jesus, the crucifixion, and the resurrection.Kind of hard to believe in something you have never even heard of.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

What I was taught about this sort of dilemna is that God can not let anyone in his presence (heaven) who is with sin. The only way to rid yourself of this sin is through asking for forgiveness, through Jesus as an intermediary. It doesn't matter what the sin is, "for all have fallen short of the glory of God", only that you ask for forgiveness.Even though I no longer believe, this type of morality seems to be better than the vengance that seems part of human nature. Turn the other cheek, whoever has not sinned cast the first stone, and do unto others seems to speak to this higher morality that everyone should strive towards beyond any particular belief system. Oops, starting to preach again.

quote:

---

As for your Native American statement. How are you so sure they didn't worship the same God we do, only in other forms as well. Besides, God states in his Bible that he is all around you. Just look, and you shall see, of course it won't be so obvious. However, most of you need evidence that you can conduct experiments on, so I won't bother trying to explain why I think God's all around.

---

Mainstream christianity teaches that salvation is through faith in Christ. Name a single native american tribe who worshiped anything like Jesus. As for whether they worship the same God, the religions are generally utterly different (and often animist/polytheist).------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."