wizdom Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The fact is admiral you are focusing way to much onb/c Christ does not give us a account. He said that the gospel will be preached all through out the earth and then the end will come. That means each generation after Christ has to have an opportunity to accept him or reject him. Also the Holy Spirit does not need anyones help to make himself attractive to people he works in our hearts. If you seen the movie end of the spear( which is a true story). Before the missionary's came over they had a religion where they believed in one God who could save them. So it had to be the Holy Spirit that made himself known to them. God does not care that you are a Christian, catholics aren't. Chrisitanity is a religion, God is not concerned with religion he is concerned about a personal relationship with him. So if those tribes where seeking after a personal relationship with God they found favor in his site. secondly the disicples have been preaching repent for the kingdom of God is a hand since Jesus Christ died and rose again and ascended to the throne to sit at the Right hand of the Father. Therefore the message was being preached all throughout the earth.Christ himself told them to go all throughout the earth and preach the Gospel. These men were led by the Holy Spirit so i am almost sure that if tribes existed in the not yet discovered lands that God would send one of his disciples to preach the gospel. Link to post Share on other sites
Admiral Thrawn Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 The fact is admiral you are focusing way to much onb/c Christ does not give us a account. He said that the gospel will be preached all through out the earth and then the end will come. That means each generation after Christ has to have an opportunity to accept him or reject him. Also the Holy Spirit does not need anyones help to make himself attractive to people he works in our hearts. If you seen the movie end of the spear( which is a true story). Before the missionary's came over they had a religion where they believed in one God who could save them. So it had to be the Holy Spirit that made himself known to them. God does not care that you are a Christian, catholics aren't. Chrisitanity is a religion, God is not concerned with religion he is concerned about a personal relationship with him. So if those tribes where seeking after a personal relationship with God they found favor in his site. secondly the disicples have been preaching repent for the kingdom of God is a hand since Jesus Christ died and rose again and ascended to the throne to sit at the Right hand of the Father. Therefore the message was being preached all throughout the earth.Christ himself told them to go all throughout the earth and preach the Gospel. These men were led by the Holy Spirit so i am almost sure that if tribes existed in the not yet discovered lands that God would send one of his disciples to preach the gospel. There is no evidence the Gospel was preached in North or South America or that an Apostle took a boat and sailed across the Atlantic/Pacific Oceans. If that did happen, there would be some evidence of Christianity within the tribes when Columbus discovered America in 1492. Why is it then established history that the 'New World' was discovered in 1492, and not earlier. We may hear of St. Timothy being a Missionary to India, but there is no church record that the world is even 'round' before Columbus discovered America. Right now, you would have to challenge establlished history that the 'New World' was discovered in 1492, and that there was no established church, or there was Christianity among the natives before Columbus discovered those places -- is that what you intend to do? Then, when do you think the 'New World' was discovered, just after Jesus rose from the dead - the Apostles decided to go to the 'New World' to reach the indigenous people and never wrote about it? So, where is the evidence that there was an established church in the new world prior to 1492? Link to post Share on other sites
wizdom Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 there may not have been christianity but they had a form of religion. if they believed and trusted in one God and looked to him for guidance, then according to God they had a personal relationship with him. It does not matter what you call God. Jesus said that there would be people in heaven that are not of his fold. Example myself i am not a jew so i am not of his fold but once i accepted jesus into my heart i have been adopted into the Kingdom and i am now a royal priest hood according to Christ. So you yourself said that you are only held accountable for what you know if missionaries went out there to preach the gospel then the Holy Spirit made him self known to those tribes and they had a chance to accept or reject God. There are somethings God doesn't expand on or go into detail about b/c he knows that we would spend to much time arguing about them and missing the point. the Fact is when you have a relationship with God and you are truly praying and interceding for the harvest and for the plans that God has for you, then he will put a desire for a country for you to either go to or at least interced for the people of that country. So If Christ told them to go out through all the earth than it is safe to say that either people had not migrated to the new world or someone went out and preached the gosepel Link to post Share on other sites
Admiral Thrawn Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 there may not have been christianity but they had a form of religion. if they believed and trusted in one God and looked to him for guidance, then according to God they had a personal relationship with him. It does not matter what you call God. Jesus said that there would be people in heaven that are not of his fold. Example myself i am not a jew so i am not of his fold but once i accepted jesus into my heart i have been adopted into the Kingdom and i am now a royal priest hood according to Christ. So you yourself said that you are only held accountable for what you know if missionaries went out there to preach the gospel then the Holy Spirit made him self known to those tribes and they had a chance to accept or reject God. However, along that vein, it is implying that people could be saved without hearing about the Gospel, while the Apostle wrote, in the book of Romans, that one can not believe in Jesus Christ without hearing about Him first. If you read between the lines of that, then it seems like there is a crack between the lines to those who do not have an opportunity, or fair opportunity to hear the Gospel and respond to it. Let's say, if everyone knew what was really going on, everybody would receive the Gospel, because nobody in their right mind would want eternal punishment in hell if it came down to a simple choice. However, lets assume for a moment, that it is possible for people to get into heaven without hearing about the Gospel. Then, that would also mean that it is counter-productive to evangelise people for Christ because you would also be giving them an opportunity to reject the Gospel, where if they did not hear it, they may not have rejected it. After all, they would have gone to heaven anyway, whether or not they have heard it, right? So in one way, it is like saying, by being good and believing in God, you can go to heaven without actually accepting Christ because God look at the heart - and by and large, people like to believe that there are many ways to go to God, as long as you are generally a good person and have a sincere heart then God will honour that and you can go to heaven. This is not the Gospel that is in the Bible, in fact, if that were true, there would be no need for a Gospel, right? The Gospel is Good News - but it has to be Good News about something. If people are ok with God in the first place, then it is meaningless. If people need to be saved, then the Good News is that by faith in Jesus Christ, they can be. Does everyone need to be saved? Yes, because the bible says everyone has sinned. On the other hand, your thoughts on the matter could to be supported with scripture, as many people in the Old Testament, such as Enoch, had testimonies that their lifestyles pleased God, and they got more revelation of God in their lives. If your heart is towards God, then God sends someone to minister to you so that you can receive Christ. There are somethings God doesn't expand on or go into detail about b/c he knows that we would spend to much time arguing about them and missing the point. People are certainly talking about this now, and it is brought up many times. Silence on the issue, or 'cracks between the lines' leads to ambiguity. However, people everywhere should just receive Christ, because without Him, their life is meaningless anyway and they die in their sins and go to hell. In that sence, debating or thinking about an issue like this is as pointless as a drowning man arguing to a guy that is throwing a life-preserver that the rubber of that life-preserver may have come from a tree in the Amazon Rain Forest, and start talking about ecology, and in the meantime drowns missing the opportunity to be saved. So, in that respect, those whose heart are towards God, and towards the truth, will receive Jesus Christ, and will see no point in such debates or arguement, and are only concerned about pleasing God and telling others about Christ. This is a faith based justification by faith in Jesus, and making a difference in the world for the Kingdom of Christ. the Fact is when you have a relationship with God and you are truly praying and interceding for the harvest and for the plans that God has for you, then he will put a desire for a country for you to either go to or at least interced for the people of that country. That's correct, so people did not know about the natives in the New World before they were discovered, so nobody did anything for them I guess. So If Christ told them to go out through all the earth than it is safe to say that either people had not migrated to the new world or someone went out and preached the gosepel So, you are saying someone went to the 'New World' and preached the Gospel when the Apostels were going out then, during that generation (i.e. around 40 AD), or that is accounted for in some way? Link to post Share on other sites
barfool Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Let's say, if everyone knew what was really going on, everybody would receive the Gospel, because nobody in their right mind would want eternal punishment in hell if it came down to a simple choice. Ah, it pokes out it's ugly head. The religion of fear. So in one way, it is like saying, by being good and believing in God, you can go to heaven without actually accepting Christ because God look at the heart - and by and large, people like to believe that there are many ways to go to God, as long as you are generally a good person and have a sincere heart then God will honour that and you can go to heaven. Now that sounds like a kind and benevolent god. Link to post Share on other sites
Aonz Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 If you can't create without some degree of suffering then why bother in the first place. As Dostoevsky asks in The Brothers Karamazov (1880) - is it really worth the suffering of one tiny creature? "Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end......but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature...And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!" If you had to press the button on creation and produce all the suffering that has occured and will occur, how can it be justifiable? If a God did press that “button” and make creation then it hints at a mystery that we can not understand. It hints at a resolution that we can only hope for, God will only be God if the final outcome is so much better than what we see around us. It has to be worth it... Link to post Share on other sites
Bogun Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 It has to be worth it... Excluding people's personal experiences with "god" in whatever form that may take, its the human ego which causes people to assume that its worth it, or that our lives have some deeper meaning. Its ego that prevents most people from considering the possibility that their life doesnt have some grand meaning. I'm not saying I belive this, but I do believe that the ego presents a big obstacle to gaining insight into our existence. Link to post Share on other sites
Max Overclock Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Excluding people's personal experiences with "god" in whatever form that may take, its the human ego which causes people to assume that its worth it, or that our lives have some deeper meaning. Its ego that prevents most people from considering the possibility that their life doesnt have some grand meaning. I'm not saying I belive this, but I do believe that the ego presents a big obstacle to gaining insight into our existence. Can't disagree more here. It's not my ego that makes me feel this way at all. I know God exists. My personal experience is almost insignificant to the much bigger picture that exists beyond our own sense of existence. The value of little old me in the bigger picture is certainly not overemphasized by this individual. Link to post Share on other sites
Aonz Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Excluding people's personal experiences with "god" in whatever form that may take, its the human ego which causes people to assume that its worth it, or that our lives have some deeper meaning. Its ego that prevents most people from considering the possibility that their life doesnt have some grand meaning. I'm not saying I belive this, but I do believe that the ego presents a big obstacle to gaining insight into our existence. With or without the existence of God the final resolution for humanity has to be something so much greater than we can even imagine. Without that final destiny I can't see how our creation or continued existence is justifiable given the cost. Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 With or without the existence of God the final resolution for humanity has to be something so much greater than we can even imagine. Without that final destiny I can't see how our creation or continued existence is justifiable given the cost. What cost? As far as the Universe is concerned, it's free--not that the Universe is conscious. Why does our existence need to be justified? Link to post Share on other sites
BlossomingMama Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 I firmly believe in something much bigger than myself. I have had too many instances in my life where there was a devine form of intervention. I don't understand why I have to choose a name for that power, or why I have to call it by the most popular name available. Link to post Share on other sites
converse02 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 If God is a concept, represents deepest physical secrets of the universe, and is based on the values and culture one holds most dear, he probably exists. If God is a uber-being who defies physics, wants witches and gays killed, magically poofs things into existance, or was some dude who got himself executed by Romans on a cross, this God is made up. Link to post Share on other sites
mental_traveller Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I agree there's no proof. But equally there's no proof that god doesn't exist. And there's no real convincing explanation for why the universe exists, or why order exists in it. So IMO it's an open question. Link to post Share on other sites
burning 4 revenge Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 There is a God and he hates me. Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted April 10, 2006 Share Posted April 10, 2006 why do you feel he hates you? How do you feel about him? Link to post Share on other sites
lostinthewoods Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I have been wondering this for a while now and although i really wish there was i dont think there is. I mean theres no proof. It makes me so angry that he doesnt help.I will probably get people saying he does but how? Has he helped any of you?Because he hasnt me. Why would he want people to obey his every command and then repay them with something thats nasty? I mean take my grandad he died a year ago from something being wrong with his heart.(painful) now my nanna a year later has cancer!Shes a believer but yet he wont help!The thing is if she gets better i suppose thats gods work but if she dies then he couldnt do anything about it.It gets me so wound up. Does he enjoy seeing people in pain?If not why does he let it happen? God is an emotionally based concept. People who know and love him need no proof. The argument is infinitely unresolvable because each party has different standards of "proof" (xtians look within, skeptics look beyond at the physical world, which is just as inconclusive). There is no God, in the traditional sense, but knowing that is empowering. You alone determine your destiny. The cosmos can be cold and capricious, but we humans still have each other. Link to post Share on other sites
wizdom Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 you have got to be kidden me? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts