religious question #53422KL-X1

[gambit]

So I'm pretty sure this question has been asked many times in the ethos, just dont remember what peoples responses were, but for those of you who are religious, what do you say to people born in a place where your religion hasnt/hadnt reached it yet? Or just another one had taken control beforehand? Can people really be blamed for believing what was taught to them as opposed to just another of the many religions? What about the ancient Mayans or basically everyone in the western hemisphere before the new world was discovered?

[MaximiIian]

I don't believe my religion is the only right one. It is but one way of honouring and respecting the gods. It doesn't reach the needs of every single person, and that's perfectly fine.

If someone else worships whatever they want in whatever manner they choose, I don't have a problem with that.

[gambit]

Thats something I can agree with. The question is focused more towards the hardcore "my religion is the only way" religions.

[cfmonkey45]

Ultimately, it depends on the eschatological interpretations of those people. Moreover, speaking from a Christian standpoint, I've ultimately come to conclude a number of things from the Bible:

1. Christ redeems
2. God will set all things right
3. God acts as the judge of our lives. He will do with us as he pleases.

This isn't entirely answering the question posed, but ultimately, if you consider my response, you can understand my perspective.

[blackwatersix]

hmm.. with regards to those people who "haven't reached my religion yet," the blame is entirely on us faithful for not spreading the Gospel enough. This doesn't mean that just because they don't want to convert we're doomed, just that it's on our heads if they haven't even heard of the Gospel 'cause we could have done more.

[gambit]

hmm.. with regards to those people who "haven't reached my religion yet," the blame is entirely on us faithful for not spreading the Gospel enough. This doesn't mean that just because they don't want to convert we're doomed, just that it's on our heads if they haven't even heard of the Gospel 'cause we could have done more.

No because it was physically impossible for anyone to get to some places. It's not a matter of faith.

Ultimately, it depends on the eschatological interpretations of those people. Moreover, speaking from a Christian standpoint, I've ultimately come to conclude a number of things from the Bible:

1. Christ redeems
2. God will set all things right
3. God acts as the judge of our lives. He will do with us as he pleases.

This isn't entirely answering the question posed, but ultimately, if you consider my response, you can understand my perspective.

I understand what you mean, how a forgiving and compassionate God would handle exceptional cases differently, but youd think it'd get mentioned somewhere in the Bible. It mentioned other known religions and peoples, so it cant be chalked down to something along the lines of "The Bible is just a guide to salvation not an encyclopedia of knowledge" so my point is, wouldnt that make you think the bible was simply written by regular old humans who didnt account for such far away lands because they didnt know and just made everything up for their own cultures and peoples?

Afterall, the Bible makes so many spectacular predictions. You'd think the "other half of the world" could get a mention.

[Arch-hereticK]

It's like a play a firnd of mine wrote:

eskimo: would I go to hell if I never learned of christ's teachings.
Preacher:No, of course not, only those who reject the truth of our lord deserve eternal damnation.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

[Elrond]

There are different views on this. The most convincing I have heard is that God will judge people on how they reacted to the most Christian elements of their religion. Ie a Buddhist who never heard about Jesus who deeply believed in compassion and forgiving others would probably go to heaven etc.

There is also the predestination argument that God knows who would and wouldn't accept Jesus if they knew about him. Personally I strongly dislike predestination but for those who do believe it then that arguably makes the most sense for them.

[Tacitursa]

You left out the most logical view Elrond.

[MaximiIian]

hmm.. with regards to those people who "haven't reached my religion yet," the blame is entirely on us faithful for not spreading the Gospel enough. This doesn't mean that just because they don't want to convert we're doomed, just that it's on our heads if they haven't even heard of the Gospel 'cause we could have done more.

That doesn't really work, because there were certainly times when Christians of Europe were physically incapable of reaching distant populations, e.g. South America. What happens to those distant people who never encountered Christians? At least, from a Roman Catholic point of view?

[blackwatersix]

That doesn't really work, because there were certainly times when Christians of Europe were physically incapable of reaching distant populations, e.g. South America. What happens to those distant people who never encountered Christians? At least, from a Roman Catholic point of view?

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation.- Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 847.

It's not the fault of those who haven't heard the Gospel, so they're okay as long as they've lived their lives in the best way that their conscience has dictated.

Since we believe that the Holy Spirit has put elements of Christianity in other religions, in ways they are in Communion (although Imperfect) with the Catholic Church.

[SigniferOne]

Traditionalist christianity /regardless of the denomination/ has viewed this question within the cathegories of the old testament. In it the white kin was blessed for loving and obeying god, the black was cursed for doing what god dislikes and the other that remain stand somewhere in between/or may have either qualities but are surely inferior/. At discovering the new world, this approach was widely taken in mind, treating the new discovered tribes at best as "others" a little better than the slaves by nature. In fact there wasn't that much difference summing all up under "savages". And savages are of course not worth of hearing about the true god , to be educated etc, by the faults of their inherited deffects, or their innate inability to get in communion with or to love the divine.

What? This is pretty much complete garbage.

[Tacitursa]

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation.- Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 847.

It's not the fault of those who haven't heard the Gospel, so they're okay as long as they've lived their lives in the best way that their conscience has dictated.

And what happens if instead of hearing the gospel first you hear and learn of the other religions and choose to beleive one of them instead.

And then when you hear the gospel you refuse to beleive it. Surely god cannot expect us to choose between so many different religions when they are so alike and there's no evidence atall which one is correct.

[Dracula]

So I'm pretty sure this question has been asked many times in the ethos, just dont remember what peoples responses were, but for those of you who are religious, what do you say to people born in a place where your religion hasnt/hadnt reached it yet? Or just another one had taken control beforehand? Can people really be blamed for believing what was taught to them as opposed to just another of the many religions? What about the ancient Mayans or basically everyone in the western hemisphere before the new world was discovered?

I guess you won't have that much people desiring to answer in this thread so I'll make a try as a bit "backward" member to answer you.

Traditionalist christianity /regardless of the denomination/ has viewed this question within the cathegories of the old testament. In it the white kin was blessed for loving and obeying god, the black was cursed for doing what god dislikes and the other that remain stand somewhere in between/or may have either qualities but are surely inferior/. At discovering the new world, this approach was widely taken in mind, treating the new discovered tribes at best as "others" a little better than the slaves by nature. In fact there wasn't that much difference summing all up under "savages". And savages are of course not worth of hearing about the true god , to be educated etc, by the faults of their inherited deffects, or their innate inability to get in communion with or to love the divine.

This approach has been changed in the last century but I don't think it is very effective. God himself casts out many tribes away from him in OT and curses too many people, puts to extermination nations. Christians at best accept the others as subject of teaching, hardly however able of achieving much. That's how you naturally have the white part of the globe hearing about god and the other parts naturally not hearing or not deserving to, or being unable to grasp etc. And there is not much that can be done about it, it's generations' choice and heritage.

[Hax]

So I'm pretty sure this question has been asked many times in the ethos, just dont remember what peoples responses were, but for those of you who are religious, what do you say to people born in a place where your religion hasnt/hadnt reached it yet? Or just another one had taken control beforehand? Can people really be blamed for believing what was taught to them as opposed to just another of the many religions? What about the ancient Mayans or basically everyone in the western hemisphere before the new world was discovered?

It's really quite irrelevant for me; since I believe in reincarnation.

I also see that virtually all religions generally have a peaceful message to them and may have do certain people good. Buddhism works for me; Christianity works for others, same goes for Islam, Hinduïsm, Sikhism, Judaism, Jaïnism, Zoroastrianism.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

Gambit in Islam, if you have no knowledge, or none what so ever up until you die, you were just judged on your deeds, no matter what religion.

[gambit]

Gambit in Islam, if you have no knowledge, or none what so ever up until you die, you were just judged on your deeds, no matter what religion.

This seems best to me, although it raises another question. Say someone is isolated from the rest of society his entire life up until the age of.. lets say 40 except he has his parents and they teach him to be completely evil. No mercy, no compassion, no generosity, the only way is to take everything for yourself and help no one and its become so embedded in his personality theres no possible way he can try any other way

is he a guilty man?

[Helm]

is he a guilty man?

Well it's not like Hitler was born evil.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

This seems best to me, although it raises another question. Say someone is isolated from the rest of society his entire life up until the age of.. lets say 40 except he has his parents and they teach him to be completely evil. No mercy, no compassion, no generosity, the only way is to take everything for yourself and help no one and its become so embedded in his personality theres no possible way he can try any other way

is he a guilty man?

Well of course there would be exceptions, in this case, he has no moraltiy, not of his own choice, but by his upbringing.


In Islam, until you reach mental maturity, you are considered pure, so a child of say 7 brought up with no religion, will be accepted, as they are aa child and are innocent. In that case, that person isn't mentally mature, due to no interaction with society.

Toughie to decide though

[KingDave]

Oops. Wrong thread. Post deleted.