question for christians, AGAIN...

[Hugo Chavez]

What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself.  Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?

Ok actually serious question.  Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell?  Or would they be considered like children?

[Butterbean]

I was looking for something I read/heard Erwin Lutzer say about this but I can't find it....will post later if I do.

The following pretty much covers my view:

(from gotquestions.org)
Question: "Do mentally ill people go to heaven? Does God show mercy to those who are mentally retarded, challenged, disabled, or handicapped?"

Answer: The Bible does not specifically say whether or not mentally ill people go to heaven. However, there is some biblical evidence that anyone who is not able to make a decision for salvation is covered by Christ’s death. This is similar to how it is commonly believed that children are automatically taken to heaven when they die until they reach the point in which they are able to make a decision for or against Christ. David had a child die, and he comforted himself with the thought, “Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23). David knew that he would see his child in heaven one day. From that statement, we can assume that babies and young children were, by God's grace, covered for salvation by Christ’s death.

We can postulate from this that mentally retarded people are covered by this principle as well. The Word of God does not specifically say this, however. Knowing the love, grace, and mercy of God, this would seem consistent with His character. Any person who is mentally challenged to the extent that he could not be aware of his sinful state and believe in Christ for salvation, is in the same category as a child and it is not unreasonable to assume that person is saved by the grace and mercy of the same God who saves babies and small children.

As in everything, however, we must be careful not to be dogmatic about any issue the Bible does not specifically address. We do know that Jesus receives as His own all that the Father has given to Him and He will lose none of them along the way (John 6:39). Jesus said of these “And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand” (John 10:28). We can take comfort in knowing that our God’s plan is always perfect, He always does what is right and just, and His love and mercy are infinite and everlasting.

Recommended Resource: Safe in the Arms of God: Words from Heaven About the Death of a Child by John MacArthur.

[Deicide]

What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself.  Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?

Ok actually serious question.  Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell?  Or would they be considered like children?

Aren't you an atheist Hugo Chavez?

[Dos Equis]

I put mentally disabled people in the same category as kids.  People are only held accountable for what they know (or should know):

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17

[Agnostic007]

So, in this case it is better to be a mentally handicapped person than a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't believe the evidence supports the bible.... weird system.....

[Dos Equis]

So, in this case it is better to be a mentally handicapped person than a reasonably intelligent person who doesn't believe the evidence supports the bible.... weird system.....

Is it really any different than how we operate in society?  For example, you cannot treat a 5-year-old kid who commits a crime like an adult.  Same concept IMO.

[Mr. Magoo]

I put mentally disabled people in the same category as kids.  People are only held accountable for what they know (or should know):

"Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
James 4:17

I disagree.

If people are only held accountable for what we know, if we universalize that principle, then it would be the best course of action if nobody ever told anyone about Jesus. Therefore less people will be held accountable and more will go to heaven. I understand your point but it is incompatible with Jesus's teaching about going forth to tell all nations. If I go to nation X as a missionary and preach to all 10,000 residents of that country, and half of them accept Jesus, then 5,000 will die and go to hell. But if what you say is true, it would be better if I never go to nation X (assuming of course nobody else goes to nation X or nobody in nation X leaves nation X) so 10,000 residents of that country will go to heaven.

I'm not saying what I believe, I'm only saying your belief is incompatible with other parts of the Bible.

[Dos Equis]

I disagree.

If people are only held accountable for what we know, if we universalize that principle, then it would be the best course of action if nobody ever told anyone about Jesus. Therefore less people will be held accountable and more will go to heaven. I understand your point but it is incompatible with Jesus's teaching about going forth to tell all nations. If I go to nation X as a missionary and preach to all 10,000 residents of that country, and half of them accept Jesus, then 5,000 will die and go to hell. But if what you say is true, it would be better if I never go to nation X (assuming of course nobody else goes to nation X or nobody in nation X leaves nation X) so 10,000 residents of that country will go to heaven.

I'm not saying what I believe, I'm only saying your belief is incompatible with other parts of the Bible.

Telling people to take the message to the world is perfectly compatible with the concept of not holding people accountable for what they haven't heard (yet) or are incapable of understanding.

The problem with your hypothetical is it assumes your missionary trip would be the only way 10,000 people would be able to learn.  That's completely unrealistic.    

[Mr. Magoo]

Telling people to be take the message to the world is perfectly compatible with the concept of not holding people accountable for what they haven't heard (yet) or are incapable of understanding.

The problem with your hypothetical is it assumes your missionary trip would be the only way 10,000 people would be able to learn.  That's completely unrealistic.   

Your first sentence doesn't really address my objection.

Let's change the time frame on my hypothetical to 1500-ish and let's make Country X present day cuba (or pick some other island). It is known that spanish explorers read aloud biblical passages to the natives and told them to accept Jesus as their savior, and when they did not, the explorers felt justified in slaughtering them. It never occurred to them that the natives never understood spanish. But I digress, the point being is that my hypothetical is a real historical example. Let's say the spanish explorers really wanted the natives to go to heaven (and this was their only end goal), according to your argument then if only two courses of action were possible A) Preach the word of God and hope they would all get saved or B) Kill all the natives with 100% assurance that all of the natives would go to heaven, the best course of action would be B. It would be the most certain way of accomplishing the end of 100% of population of country X going to heaven.

The historical example of 1500-ish island of Cuba with spanish "missionaries" proves that it is possible for natives of a country to never acquire knowledge of jesus by other means. If what you say is true, it would be best to either do option B as stated above, or never tell them at all about Jesus and refrain from anyone else telling them about Jesus.

Incompatible with "go forth into all nations and teach".

[Dos Equis]

Your first sentence doesn't really address my objection.

Let's change the time frame on my hypothetical to 1500-ish and let's make Country X present day cuba (or pick some other island). It is known that spanish explorers read aloud biblical passages to the natives and told them to accept Jesus as their savior, and when they did not, the explorers felt justified in slaughtering them. It never occurred to them that the natives never understood spanish. But I digress, the point being is that my hypothetical is a real historical example. Let's say the spanish explorers really wanted the natives to go to heaven (and this was their only end goal), according to your argument then if only two courses of action were possible A) Preach the word of God and hope they would all get saved or B) Kill all the natives with 100% assurance that all of the natives would go to heaven, the best course of action would be B. It would be the most certain way of accomplishing the end of 100% of population of country X going to heaven.

The historical example of 1500-ish island of Cuba with spanish "missionaries" proves that it is possible for natives of a country to never acquire knowledge of jesus by other means. If what you say is true, it would be best to either do option B as stated above, or never tell them at all about Jesus and refrain from anyone else telling them about Jesus.

Incompatible with "go forth into all nations and teach".

The reason this one makes no sense is it assumes the Spanish explorers were actually trying to preach God's word to the island natives.  They were not.  They were imperialists trying to take over land and resources.  Christianity does not teach that you witness to someone, and if they don't accept your message, you kill them.  lol.  So no, neither your hypothetical nor your real world example make a whole lot of sense. 

[Mr. Magoo]

The reason this one makes no sense is it assumes the Spanish explorers were actually trying to preach God's word to the island natives.  They were not.  They were imperialists trying to take over land and resources.  Christianity does not teach that you witness to someone, and if they don't accept your message, you kill them.  lol.  So no, neither your hypothetical nor your real world example make a whole lot of sense. 

maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying Christianity teaches to kill those who don't believe, I'm saying that your belief leads to both contradictory and undesirable consequences in certain situations. I don't think you can make an adequate reply of "these were not the intentions of the explorers", it's perfectly possible that it was. Or you can just imagine any other hypothetical in which it would be. You don't understand the points of a hypothetical do you?

My hypothetical isn't suppose to make sense, it's suppose to show that your argument leads to absurd consequences which I doubt anyone would agree with. Therefore your belief is somehow mistaken. I'm showing A (your argument) leads to B (and nobody would agree to B) so A is false.

[Reeves]

What if a feller is a total dumbard such as myself.  Will I go to hail if I ain't smart enuf to assep the lord n' savior?

Ok actually serious question.  Do mentally challenged sinners go to hell?  Or would they be considered like children?

Surely you jest?

[Dos Equis]

maybe I'm not making myself clear. I'm not saying Christianity teaches to kill those who don't believe, I'm saying that your belief leads to both contradictory and undesirable consequences in certain situations. I don't think you can make an adequate reply of "these were not the intentions of the explorers", it's perfectly possible that it was. Or you can just imagine any other hypothetical in which it would be. You don't understand the points of a hypothetical do you?

My hypothetical isn't suppose to make sense, it's suppose to show that your argument leads to absurd consequences which I doubt anyone would agree with. Therefore your belief is somehow mistaken. I'm showing A (your argument) leads to B (and nobody would agree to B) so A is false.

You're making yourself clear.  I'm just disagreeing with you.  And I understand hypotheticals enough to know yours make no sense.  

You can't have contradictory consequences if your entire premise is wrong.  The people who purported to be teaching God's message to island natives were not Christians, because Christians would not simply kill people who don't accept the message.  And yes, you have to examine whether the people in your hypothetical were Christian, which in turn requires an examination of whether Christianity teaches that you kill people who don't accept a missionary's message.  You can't create some scenario based on ridiculous or false facts and expect to carry the scenario to a logical conclusion.  You have to start with facts that make sense.  Yours don't.  

The "consequence" are adverse, but the consequences in your scenario have zero to do with James 4:17 (which was my point in this thread).  

[Agnostic007]

Is it really any different than how we operate in society?  For example, you cannot treat a 5-year-old kid who commits a crime like an adult.  Same concept IMO.

The difference is, we are talking eternity here. So like the story of the farmer who was sitting on his porch looking at his hound dog.. he says "All my life I worked hard, provided for my family, treated people right, got up when the sun came up, plowed the fields till dusk and when I die, because I don't believe in that bible, I spend hell in eternity..

Now that old hound dog, he aint never did anything but lay around in the shade sleeping.. when he dies, thats it..

I sure wish I was born that old hound dog..."

Kinda see the point?

[Agnostic007]

You're making yourself clear.  I'm just disagreeing with you.  And I understand hypotheticals enough to know yours make no sense.  

You can't have contradictory consequences if your entire premise is wrong.  The people who purported to be teaching God's message to island natives were not Christians, because Christians would not simply kill people who don't accept the message.  And yes, you have to examine whether the people in your hypothetical were Christian, which in turn requires an examination of whether Christianity teaches that you kill people who don't accept a missionary's message.  You can't create some scenario based on ridiculous or false facts and expect to carry the scenario to a logical conclusion.  You have to start with facts that make sense.  Yours don't.  

The "consequence" are adverse, but the consequences in your scenario have zero to do with James 4:17 (which was my point in this thread).  

The thing is, if as a christian, you tell 1000 people about Jesus and typically 300 believe you, then 700 go to hell.

If you don't tell them anything about Jesus than all 1000 go to heaven. You are doing people no favors informing them about Jesus then making them liable for their decisions.   

[Dos Equis]

The difference is, we are talking eternity here. So like the story of the farmer who was sitting on his porch looking at his hound dog.. he says "All my life I worked hard, provided for my family, treated people right, got up when the sun came up, plowed the fields till dusk and when I die, because I don't believe in that bible, I spend hell in eternity..

Now that old hound dog, he aint never did anything but lay around in the shade sleeping.. when he dies, thats it..

I sure wish I was born that old hound dog..."

Kinda see the point?

If everything he says in the story is true, then yeah, I see the point. 

I don't believe the story.  (I know it's fiction.) 

[Dos Equis]

The thing is, if as a christian, you tell 1000 people about Jesus and typically 300 believe you, then 700 go to hell.

If you don't tell them anything about Jesus than all 1000 go to heaven. You are doing people no favors informing them about Jesus then making them liable for their decisions.   

It's not that simple IMO.  Sitting someone down and talking to them about Jesus doesn't suddenly give them all the knowledge they need to make an informed choice about being a Christian.  It's a process.  I think it takes time, especially if it's someone who is older and has never really been exposed to Christianity. 

If you go back to James 4:17, it's talking about someone who knows they should or should not be doing something.  It's not talking about someone who had a person show up at their doorstep and hand them a flier. 

[Mr. Magoo]

It's not that simple IMO.  Sitting someone down and talking to them about Jesus doesn't suddenly give them all the knowledge they need to make an informed choice about being a Christian.  It's a process.  I think it takes time, especially if it's someone who is older and has never really been exposed to Christianity. 

If you go back to James 4:17, it's talking about someone who knows they should or should not be doing something.  It's not talking about someone who had a person show up at their doorstep and hand them a flier.  

how do you know? Sounds like interpretation to fit a preconceived notion. But even if what you said is true, it doesn't address the objection that it would still result in a better outcome (100% go to heaven) if Jesus is never mentioned as opposed to teaching about Jesus and 50% go to heaven as a result, assuming your argument is true.

By the way, St. Augustine would say that we all deserve hell so in cases of children and the ignorant, they would go to hell too. But we are in no position to complain because of original sin. I know you're a smart man Beach Bum but I don't think the issue is as clear as you think it is.

Don't think I'm taking an anti-christian viewpoint here. All of my talking points in this thread has come from preachers and St. Augustine, not one non-christian.

[Dos Equis]

how do you know? Sounds like interpretation to fit a preconceived notion. But even if what you said is true, it doesn't address the objection that it would still result in a better outcome (100% go to heaven) if Jesus is never mentioned as opposed to teaching about Jesus and 50% go to heaven as a result, assuming your argument is true.

By the way, St. Augustine would say that we all deserve hell so in cases of children and the ignorant, they would go to hell too. But we are in no position to complain because of original sin. I know you're a smart man Beach Bum but I don't think the issue is as clear as you think it is.

Don't think I'm taking an anti-christian viewpoint here. All of my talking points in this thread has come from preachers and St. Augustine, not one non-christian.

How do I know?  I don't know.  I'm just giving my opinion.  I think the verse I posted is pretty clear and my interpretation is reasonable (at least to me).  Do you have a different interpretation of that verse?  You think it means people are held accountable for what they don't know?  

I don't know much about St. Augustine, so I can't comment on whatever he said or believed.  But who cares what that guy said anyway?  I don't rely on preachers or "saints" to form my opinions on religious issues.  I use my own common sense.  

[Hugo Chavez]

Aren't you an atheist Hugo Chavez?

I have not idea what I am.  I think a lot of religions are made up crap but I think there is something bigger than us we don't understand.

[Reeves]

I have not idea what I am.  I think a lot of religions are made up crap but I think there is something bigger than us we don't understand.

Sadly, in your case (i.e., mental prowess) the above quoted statement covers a wide variety of sentient creatures and perhaps even certain types of plant life.  Here, allow me to make it easier on you.

U B 1 dum mofo.

[Agnostic007]

Sadly, in your case (i.e., mental prowess) the above quoted statement covers a wide variety of sentient creatures and perhaps even certain types of plant life.  Here, allow me to make it easier on you.

U B 1 dum mofo.

Get lost pecker head

[Deicide]

How do I know?  I don't know.  I'm just giving my opinion.  I think the verse I posted is pretty clear and my interpretation is reasonable (at least to me).  Do you have a different interpretation of that verse?  You think it means people are held accountable for what they don't know?  

I don't know much about St. Augustine, so I can't comment on whatever he said or believed.  But who cares what that guy said anyway?  I don't rely on preachers or "saints" to form my opinions on religious issues.  I use my own common sense.  

Isn't that just one massive oxymoron?

[Emmortal]

I struggled tremendously with this topic for some time.  I've had countless discussions about it with friends and I really never  reached clarity with it until a friend sent me this video.  Check it out as Chan lays it out pretty cut and dry:

[/youtube]

One of the main reasons that Chan is speaking out in this manner is most likely because of what Rob Bell has proposed in "Love Wins".  Bell's premise begins with "God cannot be all powerful and all loving and not eventually save everyone".  His conclusion is that God CANNOT be all loving and all powerful if he DOES NOT eventually save everyone. Another premise is along the lines of "The doctrine of an eternal Hell is not Biblical and it has been misinterpreted for the last 2,000 years by the majority".  Another premise that is implied is that "No one deserves eternal punishment."  Bell concludes professing that a new kind of Christianity is coming, like one that has never been seen.   

I wouldn't worry about Bell so much as I would ourselves, but that's the context of Chan's video.  Chan points out very well that what chance do we have in knowing the true God if we refuse to let God speak above our desires and wants whenever they conflict with Scripture.  Tim Keller does a strong job of speaking to this in The Reason for God -- he says that we are prone to creating a Stepford God, like the Stepford Wives of the movie from a few years ago.  He reasons, if God is supreme to us, then there must be times where we are deeply challenged by his ways. 

This right here is the dangerous edge we are walking next to, not just Bell.  Do you want a "revolution" more than Christ? Do we want a new "Christianity" more than Christ? Do we want to see reconciliation, healing, joy, all things made new more than we want Christ himself? Does our longing for Heaven ultimate rest in a desire to be in the presence of God? Are you worshiping the creation and not the creator Himself?

If Christ is not ultimately supreme in our affections and desires then in my personal experience, and in watching others, that's exactly when we begin to create a self-created version of Christ.  That's when we begin to say things like, "Well, I don't understand this and I refuse to believe God knows what he's doing so I will either ignore it or create an opinion that is outside of Scripture". 

So when I think about Hell I think less about how people don't deserve it and I think more about how I deserve it.  I think about how I've earned it.  And then I think about how undeserving I am of Christ's love, his rescuing me, and I am absolutely grateful.  Not because of what I've done, but because of what he's done.  That doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel better about him and my identity in him.  This produces joy but a true joy that is overflowed from him.

I cannot begin to presume to know what God's ultimate plan is, I can only hope that He is revealed to me and I can share that with every else that comes into my life.

[Butterbean]

So when I think about Hell I think less about how people don't deserve it and I think more about how I deserve it.  I think about how I've earned it.  And then I think about how undeserving I am of Christ's love, his rescuing me, and I am absolutely grateful.  Not because of what I've done, but because of what he's done.  That doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me feel better about him and my identity in him.  This produces joy but a true joy that is overflowed from him.

I cannot begin to presume to know what God's ultimate plan is, I can only hope that He is revealed to me and I can share that with every else that comes into my life.

 



I wonder if some people truly truly would choose hell/separation from God for eternity and these are the people that God allows to go to hell.  Even our faith (believers) is a gift from God, and since He knows the heart, perhaps the gift is given to those that would want to believe? 

I used to agonize over the thought of anyone not going to heaven but reading many of the posts on this website I do think that some people may truly not wish to spend eternity w/God.  It makes me think of bowl judgments in Revelation that are being poured out and men are still cursing God.  Imo, the people going through that are not ignorant of what is happening but still curse God.