Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[Sparko]

Ah, your usual lazy attempt to turn the accusation around on the accuser, with a double side of condescension and attempt at insult. Your painting of the bible and me is so wildly far off base I'm not even insulted by it. Meanwhile, you're the one spending so much time here arguing against a "fairy tale".

Yeah it is kinda odd how much time JimL and Co. spend a day arguing about something they consider a waste of time and a fairy tale. A fairly good chunk of his day seems to be dedicated to it.

[KingsGambit]

Ok, so how would you answer the question, "Can those who have never heard the Gospel be saved?"

As far as I know, no, though it's God prerogative to offer more mercy.

In my view, adopting an annihilationist view takes the big sting out of many of these questions. Nobody is going to be eternally burning in hell just because they didn't hear.

[Adrift]

As far as I know, no, though it's God prerogative to offer more mercy.

In my view, adopting an annihilationist view takes the big sting out of many of these questions. Nobody is going to be eternally burning in hell just because they didn't hear.

Oh, okay. I didn't know you were an Annihilationist. That definitely puts a different spin on some things.

[Terraceth]

Yep, a totally agnostic view on the question is certainly an option. I was just curious where KingsGambit himself leaned on the question since he's expressed that he's not fond of either Molinist nor Inclusivist answers to it. Which is perfectly fine of course. I figured if he felt strongly enough to express dissatisfaction with those views, then perhaps he leaned towards another.

Personally, I do not see the question as particularly important. After all, the situation is inapplicable to anyone who understands Christianity enough to formulate the question. The only people to whom the answer is actually practical, therefore, are those who would never ask it to begin with. As a result, I see it as a philosophical curiosity, where it could be interesting to know the answer, but is ultimately not particularly useful. It's ultimately like asking where Joseph was for most of the New Testament. The answer would be interesting, and there has been some speculation about it (I believe the most common belief is that he simply died sometime before Jesus's ministry began, not implausible for the time considering the shorter lifespans people led), but there is little practical benefit to knowing it outside of satisfying curiosity.

[KingsGambit]

Personally, I do not see the question as particularly important. After all, the situation is inapplicable to anyone who understands Christianity enough to formulate the question. The only people to whom the answer is actually practical, therefore, are those who would never ask it to begin with.

This reminds me of a rejoinder I heard to a skeptic asking the fate of those who have never heard: "You have heard."

For the sake of playing devil's advocate, I could see some benefit to the speculation on Joseph: The assumption that he had died and the mentions of Mary later in the gospel accounts suggest that Jesus may have been fulfilling his familial duty by supporting Mary. This could provide a rejoinder to an earnest Christian who missed the point of Luke 14:26.

[Tassman]

I have. And it is not substantive as you are understanding it. Now do you deny that there is an uncaused existence?

An infinite universe, as proposed by many theoretical physics, would be an “uncaused existence”.

Your idea of God is a mythical one.

All gods are mythical, there’s no substantive evidence to suggest otherwise.

As I had said, by me. As for that proverb, it is either true or it is not true. As I am sure you are familiar with the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority. That a claimed authority in and of itself does not make anything true.

Why would I believe you?

What do you mean by the term "universe?"

The totality of things and phenomena, what do you mean by “universe”?

Our known existence as we know it. What would be evidence of it being infinite? It is an assertion that if it was infinite it would not be contingent on anything else. And based on measured observations it is finite with an apparent calculated age of 13.8 something billion years old.

Our current universe is estimated to be c. 13.8 billion years old. But whether or the greater cosmos is finite or infinite is currently an open question.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-univer...-infinite.html

Only uncaused existence is not contingent on anything else.

So?

Obviously - not to you - you are not understanding the difference between "Uncaused Existence" and an "Uncaused Cause." Uncaused cause is contingent upon an uncaused existence. Existence and a cause are two different things.

Metaphysical arguments are subordinate to scientific facts. Quantum Mechanics result in a radical reshaping of the classical world-view of the ancients and invalidates metaphysical arguments based on it. This includes the Cosmological Argument, which you persist in referencing.

Plato didn't know God either.

Plato knew many gods.

[Tassman]

By not sinning. Or in the case of the Hebrews, via the animal sacrifices God set up that pointed to the coming Sacrifice of the Messiah.

How did our pre-historic ancestors know about sin or animal sacrifices? I mean, from the first appearance of Homo sapiens in Africa c. 200,000 years ago to the invention of writing and the beginning of human history c. 5,500 years ago, there are a lot of people who had no knowledge of what God considered to be "sin". Were they all doomed to eternal punishment?

[Adrift]

Personally, I do not see the question as particularly important. After all, the situation is inapplicable to anyone who understands Christianity enough to formulate the question. The only people to whom the answer is actually practical, therefore, are those who would never ask it to begin with. As a result, I see it as a philosophical curiosity, where it could be interesting to know the answer, but is ultimately not particularly useful. It's ultimately like asking where Joseph was for most of the New Testament. The answer would be interesting, and there has been some speculation about it (I believe the most common belief is that he simply died sometime before Jesus's ministry began, not implausible for the time considering the shorter lifespans people led), but there is little practical benefit to knowing it outside of satisfying curiosity.

Hmm. Unlike the Joseph question, doing a little reading around, apparently the question concerning "what happens to those who have not heard" ranks as one of the most asked questions of pastors and apologists. I think it's a fine thing to question, and empathize with those who sincerely are curious about it (rather than just asking about it as a sort of "gotcha" for why they don't accept Christianity).

[Sparko]

How did our pre-historic ancestors know about sin or animal sacrifices? I mean, from the first appearance of Homo sapiens in Africa c. 200,000 years ago to the invention of writing and the beginning of human history c. 5,500 years ago, there are a lot of people who had no knowledge of what God considered to be "sin". Were they all doomed to eternal punishment?

Again, God doesn't owe anyone salvation. Anyone going to hell will be going because of their own sins. How many times should I repeat that? Go back and read my posts from the beginning to save me from having to type it again.

[JimL]

Again, God doesn't owe anyone salvation. Anyone going to hell will be going because of their own sins. How many times should I repeat that? Go back and read my posts from the beginning to save me from having to type it again.

Then don't attribute to your god the attribute of justice. If not one of us is any better than any other, we are all sinners, right, then there has to be a reason for a god to offer the one mercy and salvation, but not the other. You seem to think that's justice, but if it is, it is a type of justice as its defined only in your own mind.

[Terraceth]

Hmm. Unlike the Joseph question, doing a little reading around, apparently the question concerning "what happens to those who have not heard" ranks as one of the most asked questions of pastors and apologists. I think it's a fine thing to question, and empathize with those who sincerely are curious about it (rather than just asking about it as a sort of "gotcha" for why they don't accept Christianity).

Well, although people will throw various prooftexts around (Romans 2:14-16 seems to be a particular favorite), ultimately the Bible gives no explicit answer. As a result, I think any answer given (beyond simply a "they are judged fairly, but what that judging entails is unknown to us") is nothing more than speculation on the part of the one answering. Maybe plausible speculation. But speculation nevertheless.

From a Protestant viewpoint, at least. A Catholic can just cite church authority and point to Catechism #847 as their answer to the question:

"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"

[Tassman]

Again, God doesn't owe anyone salvation. Anyone going to hell will be going because of their own sins. How many times should I repeat that? Go back and read my posts from the beginning to save me from having to type it again.

You’ve missed the point.

How can God blame people for committing sins when for the vast majority of the 200,000 years of human existence they had no knowledge of what constituted “sin”...apart from self-appointed spokesmen of the vast variety of gods that arose over human history. The invention of writing and written codes of behaviour only occurred c. 5,500 years ago.

[37818]

An infinite universe, as proposed by many theoretical physics, would be an “uncaused existence”.

Being proposed, does not answer the question as to what the evidence would be if it were infinite.

All gods are mythical, there’s no substantive evidence to suggest otherwise.

For one, your view of God is mythical. And so that substantive evidence of God is not even something you would even bother to consider - even if you knew of what would be that evidence.

Why would I believe you?

Why should you? Let alone anyone else for that matter.

The totality of things and phenomena, what do you mean by “universe”?

The meaning of the term or what can be observed? The mere meaning of the term can be understood to mean everything (known and not known to us). Limiting the term to mean what is physically observable, our known universe - cosmos as it is sometimes called.

Our current universe is estimated to be c. 13.8 billion years old. But whether or the greater cosmos is finite or infinite is currently an open question.

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-univer...-infinite.html

It is a supposition as to the supposed possibility of the observed universe actually being greater than what is observed to be finite.

So?

Uncaused Existence is the only thing which can be God. [Everything is not uncaused.]

Metaphysical arguments are subordinate to scientific facts. Quantum Mechanics result in a radical reshaping of the classical world-view of the ancients and invalidates metaphysical arguments based on it. This includes the Cosmological Argument, which you persist in referencing.

A couple things here. Metaphysical arguments can be nonsensical. Not that they should be. Nowhere in this thread have I proposed any kind of Cosmological Argument. As you seem to resist that there is a fundamental difference between existence and cause. I have argued Uncaused Existence not the Uncaused Cause. The major typical flaw of the Cosmological Arguments is that any infinite regression is disallowed as being impossible.

Plato knew many gods.

Which never existed in reality.

[Adrift]

Well, although people will throw various prooftexts around (Romans 2:14-16 seems to be a particular favorite), ultimately the Bible gives no explicit answer. As a result, I think any answer given (beyond simply a "they are judged fairly, but what that judging entails is unknown to us") is nothing more than speculation on the part of the one answering. Maybe plausible speculation. But speculation nevertheless.

From a Protestant viewpoint, at least. A Catholic can just cite church authority and point to Catechism #847 as their answer to the question:

"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"

Well, I agree with your general sentiment here, but again, just because this isn't something that you think is very important doesn't mean others haven't found it very important. As far as I can tell, a LOT of people find it important. The Bible doesn't go into excruciating detail on all sorts of topics that many people are desperately curious about, but that great thinkers, theologians, philosophers, apologists and the like have dwelled on and have attempted to provide answers for. I know so many people who have left the church with heavy hearts because their pastor or priest simply shrugged their shoulders on hard questions and answered "God works in mysterious ways". 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess. This, of course, doesn't mean we're to just make things up. And the Bible, while not going into excruciating detail, does leave enough general information on topics for us to know some things for certain, while offering clues towards other things. When I, or someone like me, suggests that a Molinist, or Inclusivist, or a Particularist, or even an Exclusivist view might answer the question "What happens to those who have not heard?" I'm not saying that one of these views is absolutely 100% the way it is. I'm simply offering it as a possible way that sees some scriptural evidence that a person might be able to stow away in their minds for later examination. Now others might suggest that you absolutely have to be locked onto one of these views (I haven't really seen that outside those who hold the Exclusivist view), but as I mentioned right from the start, whatever is or is not the case, one thing we can all be certain of is that God is fair and that he is just and that no one who comes to him in the end will claim that they did not have enough to go on.

[37818]

A comment regarding the judgment. Jesus said, "That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matthew 12;36-37.) He also had said, ". . . Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . ." (Matthew 18:3) ". . . not . . ." with the meaning of not in any way. Jesus explained to this to Nicodemus (John 3:3 . . . ). So those whose names are not kept in the book of life (Revelation 20:15; Revelation 3:5; 1 John 5:4, 12-13; John 20:31) will perish.