What if you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Holy Bible?

^bump^Spud, still waiting for your evidence of god. As you can see there's a bunch of us who would be interested to hear some.

deleted because I was dazed and confused.....whooosh[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 07-01-2003]re-edited because my confusion was just a temporary lapse. Faith has nothing to do with evidence, Spud. Having faith that something does or doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Faith in love is an individual state of mind and proving love would be just an exercise in futility or narcissism [This message has been edited by DBlevins, 07-01-2003]

But that is where your logic fails. Loving somone or having faith in somone loving you doesn't prove their existence. I could tell you I love my friend Harry the Rabbit and that I believe he loves me but that doesn't make Harry real. Sorry Harry On another point that just confounds me. I can't understand how people can not see that the belief or religion they hold to be true is on a large basis based on where they were born and live. If you lived in Bombay, India or Cairo Egypt it'd be a likely prospect that you'd likely be arguing the Hindi or Muslim religion and how perfect they were, and how other religions were false.
Science is presented in a manner that allows itself to be tested and proven. We correct or disregard that which is proven to be false. It is testable. Faith isn't and that is where it fails from a scientific standpoint. Faith is not evidence. While proscribing to any faith is your right, it doesn't make God or any other supreme being or supernatural power testable or evidential.

Well after observing what most people have written I have come to the conclusion that no one has really anwered logically the question raised in the first instance. Which being in my own words "If you have not heard about Christ do you go to hell?, or better yet if you are a child and you die do you go to hell?" Well to answer this I believe we must first answer another question; What causes a person to go to hell? Biblically the only answer to this question whether literally, figuratively or whatever, is; by one dilieberately rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior (note: this is whether done directly or indirectly), and we see this in all of the Gospels (John 3:16 is probably the most famous verse)
Now first of all a child cannot reject Christ diliberately because they do not know the basis of why they must accept Christ. They do not know how to activate there conscience and believe in Christ and therefore they are exempted from this in what biblical theologens call "the age of innocense", it is debated when this age ends and no one can put there finger on it. I guess that is where God the judge comes in. Most people base there belief of this on the story of David and the death of his son. The Bible says that David will one day see his dead son again, and most if not all interpret this as being in heaven. Now in regards to the question; if you have not heard the Gospel or about Jesus etc. than why do you deserve to go to hell? Well in the Bible in Romans 1, it is devoted to answering this question. Such statements as "That which is known of God", "God has shown it to them", "For the invisible things of God are seen in his creation", "so that they are without excuse", "When they knew God they Glorified him not as God", "worshipped the creature more than the creator". You see every single human being whether Gnostic, Atheist, Christian, Hindi or whatever, has some sort of knowledge of a higher being. This is proven as evidence of tribes recently found in the jungles of the Amazon who all worshipped an Idol God. You see all of us understand that we have a higher being, what has happend is many of us have changed the uncorruptible God into an image made unto corruptible man and therefore have moved away from the truth of God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. The bible teaches that if people are truly seeking God then it is God's obligation to send someone there way. Therefore that is where missionaries come into play. How did the Gospel get to America, Australia, India, China? because men and women answered God's calling to go and preach the Gospel to every creature. You see if every single Christian follower took the Gospel to the world than everyone would hear it and therefore would be confronted to accept or to reject. So to conclude children do not go to hell but if you are at an age where you can activate your conscience and you do not accept Christ as your Savior then yes you would go to hell[This message has been edited by Souljah1, 07-07-2003]

quote:

---

You see all of us understand that we have a higher being,

---

No, "all of us" do not.

quote:

---

what has happend is many of us have changed the uncorruptible God into an image made unto corruptible man and therefore have moved away from the truth of God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

Um what the heck does this mean?

quote:

---

The bible teaches that if people are truly seeking God then it is God's obligation to send someone there way. Therefore that is where missionaries come into play.

---

I find missionaries arrogant and annoying.I "truly sought God" for the first 20 years of my life, and now I'm an agnostic.

quote:

---

How did the Gospel get to America, Australia, India, China? because men and women answered God's calling to go and preach the Gospel to every creature.

---

Again, how arrogant. All of these places already had their own religions. who are Christians to decide that they are right and all other s are wrong. Christians don't live any better or behave any better than any other group. In fact, they have been much more murderous and oppressive than many other religions. Besides, many of the early "missionaries" were basically doing government work; if you convert the locals to your religion, then you can more easily control them, because your king is endorsed by God, after all.

quote:

---

You see if every single Christian follower took the Gospel to the world than everyone would hear it and therefore would be confronted to accept or to reject.

---

Oh, please, no more Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons or Baptists ringing my doorbell! Why do so many Christians arrogantly think that I haven't thought about each and every question they pose to me long before they came to my door?

quote:

---

So to conclude children do not go to hell but if you are at an age where you can activate your conscience and you do not accept Christ as your Savior then yes you would go to hell

---

So, the death row inmate who has raped and murdered a bunch of children who accepts Jesus as his lord and savior WILL get into heaven, but the Athiest who has spent her life helping other people, giving to charity, raising moral and productive chilren and basically being an all-around great person will go to hell?If so, the God is an egomaniacal bastard who cares nothing of how we treat each other as long as his ego is stroked.

Well Schrafinator you brought up some interesting points in your reply. And to respond I would like you to answer a few questions and would be interested in your answers or anyone else's for that matter.You claim to be an agnostic: Define for me an Agnostic?An Agnostic is just an Athiest who compromises between Theism and Theology, or could you better explain your difinition. Or should I say in brief "One who is too confused to believe in either God or No-God" You see at the end of the day if there is not one true God, and one true way to know him than does that not make us all agnostics trying to create our own God or whatever else we would like to worship? If nothing at all.
Another Question:How many different races are there?Your answer to this question at first might be hundreds, but the fact is there is only one - The human race, made up of different cultures but scientifically proven to have come from one set of DNA.(And you thought Science disproved biblical events)
You said you could not understand why some one who has murdered and raped and then accepts Christ as their Personal Savior should get to go to heaven, but someone who hasnt and lives a good life doesn't.
well answer thisHow Good is Good enough?Another Question:If you think about killing someone but dont actually kill them, does this change what is already brewing in your heart?
Another Question:
Define for me Christianity in it's biblical sence? Not according to the experiences you have had of so called Christians.(Mormans, jehovah's, Baptist etc.)
Just because a missionary claims they are a missionary does this mean God has sent them? Remembering the Bible says "by their fruits you will know them"
Now to answer your questions.quote:what has happend is many of us have changed the uncorruptible God into an image made unto corruptible man and therefore have moved away from the truth of God the Father and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
Um what the heck does this mean?
It means that through the ages even in the times of Moses people have chosen to glory in an idol or something they can worship that they can see. For example the Israelites who made the golden calf. The Hindi religions who have made statues and even Catholics who worship the statue of Mary and so on. The Bible says people have made there own images of God.quote:The bible teaches that if people are truly seeking God then it is God's obligation to send someone there way. Therefore that is where missionaries come into play.I find missionaries arrogant and annoying
And to be honest Schrafinator I do to. But all I am saying is that in order for people to hear the Gospel, someone needs to be sent to tell them and if everybody God called to be a missionary actually went then all would hear one way or another. And in our day and age if there is a group they truly seek to know God, there are plenty of means where this can happen.I agree with you Schrafinator that there are so many different types of Christianity and therefore who to believe? Well if this helps I found that Christianity is soley based on the Bible if there is any extra or any less to whatever denomination than it is not biblical Christianity. You see this word has been stereo-typed so much even to the point where it does not actually reflect what it means. And to this I say I follow Christ according to the Holy Bible, not according to it's worldly interpretation.

This might be weird to hear from an atheist, but I kind of agree with you. Either god exists, which would mean there is evidence of god, or else God does not exist. Since there's no evidence for god I take the position that god does not exist, similarly to how you might take the position that Allah or Shiva does not exist. As it turns out race is purely a social pheonomenon, as far as I know. There are no reliable genetic markers that signify race. You might want to look this up. As far as I know the DNA evidence is consistent only with an explanation of human decent from one original (and rather small) population. Something on the order of 10,000 individuals. Certainly more than the Bible records were on the Ark. Oh, come on. That's just ridiculous. Do you honestly think Adolf Hitler wasn't any worse than Albert Schwitzer? He founded the Red Cross, if you didn't know.It's not a matter of being good enough. It's a matter of, on one hand, demanding accountability for so-called "sins", but on the other, claiming that no good deed can ever make up for a bad one. That's some skewed arithmetic, if you ask me. And remember, Hitler was a good Lutheran - even the Catholic Church supported his regime. So by the logic of your Bible he must be in Heaven.Look, it's just ridiculous. Some bad things are worse than others. Human law reflects this. Why doesn't divine law? I'll take human law any day, where the punishment fits the crime - not divine law where there's only one punishment for any bad deed. Does it matter? If I only thought about killing them, they're still alive, right? Hasn't God heard of "no harm, no foul"? So then it is about deeds, not faith. Is there a cross in your church? Have you prayed in front of it? What's different about that? Or for that matter, isn't the Biblical literalist's faith in the Bible a kind of idolatry? Ah, so then (as Truthlover likes to point out) you live a life of ascetic denial and have given away all your Earthly possessions, right? I guess you're using somebody else's computer, then.Also I assume you never wear clothing of mixed fiber.I have a sense that, despite what you think, you're not interpreting the Bible literally - you're just relying on the interpretation that justifies a worldview you've already accepted. Why don't you crack that Bible and see what a real literal interpretation would make you do.

Hey, Crash-
The point you made is probably my biggest contention "against" christianity and I'd like anybody to reply with their opinions;
1) Is the bible literal or figurative?2) If literal, then science must be ignored and abandoned due to such conflicting accounts, such as the global flood, 6 day creation, special creation (humans), etc.3) If figurative, then why the rules and regulations governing religion? Isn't it by faith that one is saved? Oops, that's literal..4) If both, then who decides which verse(s) are literal and which are figurative?

) Is the bible literal or figurative?it is the truth figuratively and literally.THIS IS ONLY A PROBLEM WITH NON BELIEVERS.') If literal, then science must be ignored and abandoned due to such conflicting accounts, such as the global flood, 6 day creation, special creation (humans), etc.'no,we just have to look for the evidence of 1, special creation ,self evident! and 2, if we think it is literal (6 days)then what evidence do we look for. personally i think if God is able to make what is here then he is easily capable of six days.science does not disagree with the bible , your perceptions do!

Sorry for the delay ppls, busy boy Again this post is about Faith and Belief, when I find the time I will post a discussion with you elsewhere I am very busy atm and this sort of discussion/debate could go on forever Agian sorry. You accept love for whatever it is you think it is. Yet you don't know how it works or where it came from. And you can't find any phyiscal evidence for its existance. Yet you are happy to live with that fact. You are happy knowing it exists without having the proof. However mention the word God and all of a sudden you need evidence, you need hard physical evidence before you even consider this supposed creater, or state of mind, or whatever you want to refer to it as. Well all choose what we want to believe and what we don't want to believe, regardless of what evidence we have and don't have.------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

quote:

---

You accept love for whatever it is you think it is. Yet you don't know how it works or where it came from.

---

Because love is a feeling like "I feel hot" or "I feel cold." It is subjective. No one is claiming it exists anywhere but in the mind of the person doing the feeling. Is this what you propose of God?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Actually, the debate's over once you present incontrovertable evidence of god. I mean, if you can do that, you win, basically. Not so. There's plenty of physical evidence. (No, not that kind of physical! ) There's the numerous independant reports of people who claim to be in love. There's the way it affects their behavior. There's the change in chemical states in the brain.There's considerably more physical evidence for the existence of "love" than there is for "God". Which is weird if you claim that God works in this world - created it, even. If god is such a big deal there should be incontrovertable evidence all over the place. But I do have proof. I've seen the proof. I'm even in love myself. It would be very, very hard for me to say that love does not exist in any form. It's contradictory to the data.However saying "God does not exist" is not contradictory to any data that I am aware of. I try to choose to believe that which is best supported by the data. But I guess I'm weird like that. Not everybody assumes what they want to believe and then tries to prove it after the fact, you know. Believing what you want despite the evidence is not generally a technique used by anyone but Creationists.

This is my justification for this off topic post, but the thread is either off topic, anyway, or it's such a general topic that this fits into it, too.I'd like to try to answer Pogo's questions with some very old answers, as I think the very early Christians would have answered them, and as I would now. Depends on what God says by his Spirit. Right. One, science has proven it's not literal; two, the people who think it's literal have terrible fruit ("You shall know a prophet by his fruit"); and three, we've never had to address its literalness in any practical way, so we wouldn't know ourselves outside of the help of points one and two.God rarely speaks about any Biblical subject until there's some practical purpose for doing so, as he tends to be much more concerned about action than talk. "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient..." (1 Tim 1:9).Rules and regulations are for those of us who are not in tune enough with God to do his will all the time. Where we are, they do not apply. Where we aren't, we obtain help wherever we can. The Holy Spirit, as judged by the church.In the end, the faith of Christ and his apostles was supposed to be a spiritual faith, not one obtained from a book. "As many as are led by the Spirit, these are the sons of God." "The anointing remains with you (plural, y'all), and you know all things...The anointing which you have received from him remains in you, and you do not need any man to teach you."The writings of our faith, some of which have been gathered into a book called by moderns "The Holy Bible," are a tool and an aid to us. They are not the rule of life. That is given to us by the Spirit of God as we learn from God *together*.

I didn't realise this was a competition crashfrog? I started this particular post and got the answer I was looking for. Then it progressed into a discussion on faith, which I found interesting so I put in my 2 cents. And now discussion No.3 ;P. So, what kind of incontrovertable evidence of god are we talking about here? What would it take for you to believe in God? Gimme an example. You don't understand what I am talking about. You mention all these acts of love but you can't tell me what love actually is. I've gone over this already. Where did it come from? If it's all just in your head, where in your head?? Did it evolve or was it always there? Why is it so strong and yet so weak. Your thoughts on that please not the 'acts' of love. You love the word incontrovertable don't you?
Well I could go on and on about the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, landscapes, horizons, the human eye, dna storage, bla bla bla but you probably get that a lot so I won't go there ok
One theory I could believe easily is this one:
Take The Matrix (movie) as an example. Here we have a world created by someone or something. It didnt work properly until the creator gave the ppl in the world 'choice'. Maybe Gods works in a simular way. He has given us the world and a choice. I mean why would someone create something like a Matrix and have it do exactly what you want them to do? You would just have a bunch of robots. Pointless. He put us on this earth and let us do what ever we want. We can either follow Him, through His Word and his Son etc, or follow Satan, the deciever, doing whatever he can to turn you away from God. So here we are on this earth with the same evidence and choices to make. It's only the way we perceive it that is the difference. Hehe I don't think so. You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong. You would have to have ALL the evidence and knowledge in the universe not just some of it. You would have to know everything in order to state something like that, which I can assure you, you don't.What is your belief anyway crashfrog? I presume you are an athiest/evolutionist but when you keep asking for evidence on God saying you will believe in God if there is evidence, you come across as someone undecided. Atm you tag along next to evolution, but if something better with more evidence comes along you'll follow that??------------------
When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.

Hi all,I'm not presuming to answer for Crash, but I would like to make a few comments. Saying that you are open to the fact that you may be wrong is NOT believing in SPITE of the evidence. It is following where the evidence leads...that is part of the scientific method. I am pretty sure that if "incontrovertable" evidence for the existance of God came up, most here would then "believe".As far as "tagging along next to evolution", this is one of the most tested and evidence based theories out there. The evidence comes from multiple disciplines. One of the great things about science is its willingness to change to meet this evidence. If all the evidence in science pointed in the opposite direction from evolution, most here would not accept the theory. I don't think its a matter of being "undecided" as much as the idea that if evidence came in to overturn or change your ideas, one should be willing to follow the evidence and not your beliefs.I also hope you are not equating atheism and evolution as many here are believers in God and still accept the TOE.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato