[SG1-954RR]

A Question has come to mind and I was wondering if anyone could give me a hand?
-If Belief in Christ is required to attain salvation, what happend to all those who never knew (the Aztecs for example) of Christ and therfore could not accept him?
Thanks!

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by SG1-954RR

A Question has come to mind and I was wondering if anyone could give me a hand?
-If Belief in Christ is required to attain salvation, what happend to all those who never knew (the Aztecs for example) of Christ and therfore could not accept him?
Thanks!

The Mormons got them covered.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by SG1-954RR

A Question has come to mind and I was wondering if anyone could give me a hand?
-If Belief in Christ is required to attain salvation, what happend to all those who never knew (the Aztecs for example) of Christ and therfore could not accept him?
Thanks!

And therin lies the principal problem with belief in any particular religious principles: That everyone doesn't believe the same, hasn't believed the same, and won't beleve the same tomorrow; and yet, people still believe in each age or aeon that they "know the truth" or have the "answer" or the "key to salvation." You are just so right. Didn't the Greeks or Romans believe in their gods as devoutly as we do in the modern age? That issue is a real problem for theologians, and the reason that I detest the self-righteous.

However, I think there is the way the old testament deals with it, and as far as the spiritual literature goes, is the best for a direct answer to your query.

The fact that god exists, and that people must come to belief on their own seems to be an assumption and a foregone conclusion to those who believe in the judeo/islamic/christian god; and so, for those without "knowledge," of the judeo/islamic/christian god, they are presented with the truth of Jehova upon death.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

And therin lies the principal problem with belief in any particular religious principles: That everyone doesn't believe the same, hasn't believed the same, and won't beleve the same tomorrow; and yet, people still believe in each age or aeon that they "know the truth" or have the "answer" or the "key to salvation." You are just so right. Didn't the Greeks or Romans believe in their gods as devoutly as we do in the modern age? That issue is a real problem for theologians, and the reason that I detest the self-righteous.

However, I think there is the way the old testament deals with it, and as far as the spiritual literature goes, is the best for a direct answer to your query.

The fact that god exists, and that people must come to belief on their own seems to be an assumption and a foregone conclusion to those who believe in the judeo/islamic/christian god; and so, for those without "knowledge," of the judeo/islamic/christian god, they are presented with the truth of Jehova upon death.

Do you ever leave the courtroom????

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

Do you ever leave the courtroom????

Dude, if you think that is courtroom stuff, you have either never watched a court show, never seen a law and order, or generally have a skewed view of the court system. Go to see arraignments or a real criminal trial sometime, and then re-read my comments on this "message board" and see if you can see any similarity.

I am currently working (quasi-part-time)on a PhD in Philosophy (with a focus on justice, ethics and the law, which will take me like another 10 years to complete because my proposed dissertation topic is way too muddled and non-specific) at a local state school, and most of the stuff I post here is informed by the philosophical method, rather than the legal method. An attorney, yes; but nothing about what I have written on this board about religion, economics, psychology, or any of that other stuff has anything to do with my law degree. I have given some general info about a few legal subjects, but none of that was "lawyerly" and was more in the factual or historical vein. That JD is just a degree, not what or who I am, and as I have stated in another post, most people are stupid non-thinkers, and lawyers are no different. I think I am different, and have some empirical evidence to back it up, but who knows. The practice of law, generally, is merely the ability to argue at the limits of analogy. I rarely use analogy. Remember, the sophists, cosmologists, epistemologists, realists, and others were arguing long before there were lawyers...We were discussing something else. I can compartmentalize my various intellectual pursuits, and encourage you to do so as well.

I prefer to post as many well-thought out answers/posts as I can. If ya got a problem with me, PM me and throw down the gauntlet. Pick a subject, a position, and let's argue. I will try my best. That stuff is FUN! But absolutely NOT a lawyerly skill (although I think it ought to be)...

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Dude, if you think that is courtroom stuff, you have either never watched a court show, never seen a law and order, or generally have a skewed view of the court system. Go to see arraignments or a real criminal trial sometime, and then re-read my comments on this "message board" and see if you can see any similarity.

I am currently working (quasi-part-time)on a PhD in Philosophy (with a focus on justice, ethics and the law, which will take me like another 10 years to complete because my proposed dissertation topic is way too muddled and non-specific) at a local state school, and most of the stuff I post here is informed by the philosophical method, rather than the legal method. An attorney, yes; but nothing about what I have written on this board about religion, economics, psychology, or any of that other stuff has anything to do with my law degree. I have given some general info about a few legal subjects, but none of that was "lawyerly" and was more in the factual or historical vein. That JD is just a degree, not what or who I am, and as I have stated in another post, most people are stupid non-thinkers, and lawyers are no different. I think I am different, and have some empirical evidence to back it up, but who knows. The practice of law, generally, is merely the ability to argue at the limits of analogy. I rarely use analogy. Remember, the sophists, cosmologists, epistemologists, realists, and others were arguing long before there were lawyers...We were discussing something else. I can compartmentalize my various intellectual pursuits, and encourage you to do so as well.

I prefer to post as many well-thought out answers/posts as I can. If ya got a problem with me, PM me and throw down the gauntlet. Pick a subject, a position, and let's argue. I will try my best. That stuff is FUN! But absolutely NOT a lawyerly skill (although I think it ought to be)...

I have a really close friend here that talks like you.... I just tell him to STFU and ride. And I hate TV, it sucks a$$ worse then internet forums...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

I have a really close friend here that talks like you.... I just tell him to STFU and ride. And I hate TV, it sucks a$$ worse then internet forums...

That was great. My wife tells me the same thing, without the ride part, of course...

But seriously, those lawyerly skills are rarely brought to bear here.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

That was great. My wife tells me the same thing, without the ride part, of course...

But seriously, those lawyerly skills are rarely brought to bear here.

You meant analogbear, right?????

Oh, oh.... do you smell that... it's another

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

You meant analogbear, right?????

Oh, oh.... do you smell that... it's another

Always goin' for the cheap joke, are we?

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Always goin' for the cheap joke, are we?

I'm old and got nothing better to do. Did I highjack this thread to say "I was riding my bike all day"???????

[analogbear]

Bite me...It was beautiful, but I had the kids...No riding today.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Bite me...It was beautiful, but I had the kids...No riding today.

I had my kids early(when I was 21), that's why I get to ride all day. Sorry

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

I had my kids early(when I was 21), that's why I get to ride all day. Sorry

No prob...

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

No prob...

So, to get backon track of the subject at hand... You did not respond to my Mormon comment... Were you unaware that I was not being a wiseass... Just ask Joseph Smith.....

[analogbear]

I have read the bom, and get your point; but I think the original poster was kinda asking a more general question about non-believers, etc. I think it is cool that both the old test and the bom have a parallel.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I have read the bom, and get your point; but I think the original poster was kinda asking a more general question about non-believers, etc. I think it is cool that both the old test and the bom have a parallel.

I just asked my wife the same... According to the BOM, those that perish from this world without being afforded the Word of God, will given second chance in.... I forgot what level of existence they called it... I was thinking about purgatory, but that, according to the Catholics, is where those who die in God's grace but are not completely free from sin will go.

So many demoninations and faiths.... so little time... time.... is it time to go ride my bike again????

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

I just asked my wife the same... According to the BOM, those that perish from this world without being afforded the Word of God, will given second chance in.... I forgot what level of existence they called it... I was thinking about purgatory, but that, according to the Catholics, is where those who die in God's grace but are not completely free from sin will go.

So many demoninations and faiths.... so little time... time.... is it time to go ride my bike again????

Ain't mythology grand!

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Ain't mythology grand!

Yup, and it's a mythtery that we get any ride time in for as much time as we spend bangin' the keyboard

[leelover]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

Yup, and it's a mythtery that we get any ride time in for as much time as we spend bangin' the keyboard

Speak for yourself sicko! Bangin' the key board! You must be desperate!

[leelover]

No one goes to hell because they did not hear of The Lord.
They do so because they break the law.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by leelover

Speak for yourself sicko! Bangin' the key board! You must be desperate!

OH ****... NOT AGAIN.....

[SG1-954RR]

Originally Posted by leelover

No one goes to hell because they did not hear of The Lord.
They do so because they break the law.

Ok interesting point, but what law are you referring to, and do you have an example?
And in rebuttal:
-Assuming they are ignorant of the way to salvation, how can they be condemned, due to the fact that they are denied even the opportunity to be saved?

-Is it not then the fault of the All-Powerful or his followers for not teaching them or providing a way to be saved?

The BOM points are interesting as well. I am interested in how all faiths that are the one true path, (no sarcasm intended) justify there way as the only way and how they cover the holes.

And thanks to everyone who has given there thoughts, and sorry it takes me so long to reply.

[leelover]

Specifically, the Law given by God in the Ten Commandments.

[SG1-954RR]

Thanks for clarifiying!

What I'm looking for though is basically; is god screwing over those people who have been denied knowledge of Jesus throughout history?

To me it seems like condemning someone to ETERNAL DAMNATION for failing a test they didn't know about and couldn't take.