Paradox?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is inspired by another thread:

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

Do people agree? If you had never heard about God, Jesus, Christian theology, the crucifixion, salvation, heaven etc from some person, could you still be a Christian?

You likely heard about these things from parents, pastors, friends etc. And they heard it from parents, pastors, friends etc. And so on. The Bible was also written by people who then passed on these written works to others and at some point or another someone claimed they were inspired. So is the whole paradox solved via the "faith card" where you say you have faith that the Bible is not of men but of God? But men still had to first tell you it was inspired, right? Its not like I can just pick up Catcher In The Rye and say, "Hey, this is inspired!" Someone likely TOLD you the Bible was inspired at some point, I doubt you came to that doctrinal conclusion on your own, or did you?

No one magically comes to be a Christian and know Jesus Christ and follow the god of the Bible if they are isolated from Christians. Why doesn't this ever happen?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

MY FRIEND,

When a Christian bears witness to the Truth and Power of the Gospel, they are speaking through the Power and with the Authority of the indwelling Holy Spirit which is given to each person who surrenders themselves COMPLETELY to God for the purpose of being used by God as a Tool for the conversion of others.

Thus, it is God speaking through the man or woman, they are not speaking on their own authority or with the faulty reasoning of their defective human minds. As Paul explains, "I WANT YOU TO KNOW, BROTHERS, THAT THE GOSPEL I PREACHED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MAN MADE UP. I DID NOT RECEIVE IT FROM ANY MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT; RATHER, I RECEIVED IT BY REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST." (Galatians 1:11)

There is no paradox!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

MY FRIEND,

When a Christian bears witness to the Truth and Power of the Gospel, they are speaking through the Power and with the Authority of the indwelling Holy Spirit which is given to each person who surrenders themselves COMPLETELY to God for the purpose of being used by God as a Tool for the conversion of others.

Thus, it is God speaking through the man or woman, they are not speaking on their own authority or with the faulty reasoning of their defective human minds. As Paul explains, "I WANT YOU TO KNOW, BROTHERS, THAT THE GOSPEL I PREACHED IS NOT SOMETHING THAT MAN MADE UP. I DID NOT RECEIVE IT FROM ANY MAN, NOR WAS I TAUGHT IT; RATHER, I RECEIVED IT BY REVELATION FROM JESUS CHRIST." (Galatians 1:11)

There is no paradox!

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

So why don't people become Christians by revelation if they are isolated from Christian culture? Why does no one have revelations because of the indwelling Holy Spirit? Why do people who are isolated from Christianity never get revelations, only people who are exposed to Christianity (often born into the culture)?

 

[solarwave]

This is inspired by another thread:

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

Do people agree? If you had never heard about God, Jesus, Christian theology, the crucifixion, salvation, heaven etc from some person, could you still be a Christian?

I agree. Someone need to hear about Christianity to become a Christian. People should be able to learn from other people.

 

[Chesterton]

No one magically comes to be a Christian and know Jesus Christ and follow the god of the Bible if they are isolated from Christians. Why doesn't this ever happen?

You don't know that this never happens. "Christian" is just a word. One could be a capitalist at heart without ever having heard the word "capitalism".

 

[elman]

This is inspired by another thread:

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

Do people agree? If you had never heard about God, Jesus, Christian theology, the crucifixion, salvation, heaven etc from some person, could you still be a Christian?

You likely heard about these things from parents, pastors, friends etc. And they heard it from parents, pastors, friends etc. And so on. The Bible was also written by people who then passed on these written works to others and at some point or another someone claimed they were inspired. So is the whole paradox solved via the "faith card" where you say you have faith that the Bible is not of men but of God? But men still had to first tell you it was inspired, right? Its not like I can just pick up Catcher In The Rye and say, "Hey, this is inspired!" Someone likely TOLD you the Bible was inspired at some point, I doubt you came to that doctrinal conclusion on your own, or did you?

No one magically comes to be a Christian and know Jesus Christ and follow the god of the Bible if they are isolated from Christians. Why doesn't this ever happen?

Everything we know we heard from other people. It seem bogus to me to say Christianity is suspect because you heard about it from other people.

 

[bling]

So why don't people become Christians by revelation if they are isolated from Christian culture? Why does no one have revelations because of the indwelling Holy Spirit? Why do people who are isolated from Christianity never get revelations, only people who are exposed to Christianity (often born into the culture)?

As has already been said, “We do not know how many “Christ like People” (Christians) there are in the world that have never heard of Christ.”

To those “Christians” that have never heard about Christ, telling them about Christ is truly good news (I speak from experience. That is when “evangelizing” is really fun. We miss out on that “fun” by sitting at home not talking to the nonbeliever.

There is a lot of logic behind having the “gospel” be presented by true Christians on the ground one on one with nonbelievers (we are not ‘teaching” some message, but are trying to allow Christ to live through us and have Christ be seen through us to others (especially His Love). This is the Christians honor and privilege.

 

[zaksmummy]

In the Psalms it says that the earth shows God to those who will look for him.

God reveals himself through the natural world, and those who believe in the creator and not the created are worshippers of the Living God. They may not have heard the name Jesus, but that doesnt mean that they dont worship God. The title "christian" is irrelevant in these situations.

Look at Abraham in the bible, no one told him about the One True God and yet he believed.

 

[822heck]

Dear Leftrightleftrightleft,
Your question seems to be :"Can a person who has never heard of Christ become a Christian?"
A similar question might be: "Can a person who has never read or heard the Bible become a Christian? "
"And hereby we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that saith 'I know Him' and keepeth not His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him." 1 John 2:3 & 4
So it would be an impossibility to know Christ unless you knew and kept His commandments...right? The interesting thing, LRLRL, is that those that know Him are aquited from the penalty of NOT keeping the Commandments. We are set free by the Grace of God through faith.
So then, to be sure that you know Christ, you must obey the Commandments in WORD and in DEED and the SPIRIT of the law. But you and I are guilty of NOT doing that.
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10
Therefore, we have to be forgiven. A Payment has to be made for our law-breaking. Christ did that for His People on the Cross. Therefore, you must know Christ by saving,converting faith in order to be a Christian.
"But God commendeth His love towards us; in that,while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:13

Jesus said:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."John 3:16

So,the Bible says to be a Christian you must have your breaking of God's Law's forgiven. In order to do that you must know Him.

I think you know what to do.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I agree. Someone need to hear about Christianity to become a Christian. People should be able to learn from other people.

So what gives one person greater authority to teach than another? Why is it "wrong" for someone to listen to a person talking about Islam and become a Muslim yet it is "right" for someone to listen to a person talking about Christianity and become a Christian?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You don't know that this never happens. "Christian" is just a word. One could be a capitalist at heart without ever having heard the word "capitalism".

If doctrine is not the defining characteristic of a religion then what is religion?

If a man stumbled out of the woods and told you about this guy named Bob who is both human and divine at the same time and he came to save humanity and have a relationship with them, this man would be called crazy or heretic. He would not be accepted with open arms as Christians around the world say, "Look, someone has converted to Christianity without being told about it!"

They would condemn him for blasphemy. With your logic, the people who worship(ed) Quetzalcoatl, Osiris and Amitabha could be 'Christians' because many of the ideas present roughly align with Jesus and Christianity.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Everything we know we heard from other people. It seem bogus to me to say Christianity is suspect because you heard about it from other people.

Its not bogus, its just paradoxical because apparently the minds of men are horribly flawed. So if you heard something from someone who is in his own consciousness with his own interpretations and his own cultural biases, then you're forced to assume these flaws have obscured the truth and everything which he tells you is suspect. Whether he is telling you about Christianity or quantum physics, everything he says is suspect because, according to the quote from my OP "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God".

So how do you avoid men as being a necessary link between you and your knowledge of Christian 'truth'?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

As has already been said, “We do not know how many “Christ like People” (Christians) there are in the world that have never heard of Christ.”

I believe there are many people striving to be Christ-like, knowingly or unknowingly; Christian or non-Christian. I do not believe that the label "Christian" means you are more actively striving for the Christ-like ideal. It seems there is little correlation between the label "Christian" and the likelihood that they are more or less "Christ-like". It begs the question as to why it is important to apply the label.

To those “Christians” that have never heard about Christ, telling them about Christ is truly good news (I speak from experience. That is when “evangelizing” is really fun. We miss out on that “fun” by sitting at home not talking to the nonbeliever.

Do you expect all "Christ-like" people to accept the Gospel despite already living a fulfilling, morally-upright life? They are already striving for an ideal of their own, why do they need to be told about the figure of Christ if they are already intuitively striving for the ideal without that piece of doctrine?

There is a lot of logic behind having the “gospel” be presented by true Christians on the ground one on one with nonbelievers (we are not ‘teaching” some message, but are trying to allow Christ to live through us and have Christ be seen through us to others (especially His Love). This is the Christians honor and privilege.

I fail to see the logic from a Christian standpoint. The basic premise of Christianity is that the Christian God loves us all so much and wants to spend eternity with us. He gave us free will and we all fail in a big way. But instead of making it culture-, doctrine- and place-independent, the Christian God has given us the "truth" via a highly doctrinized, convoluted way that is highly dependent on culture and place. If his desire is to spend eternity with us, then his methodology for meeting that desire is not very efficient!

In fact, virtually nothing about the current form of proselytizing makes much sense. Few are convinced. Most are skeptical. You find high rates of conversion in places where there is a need for forgiveness, a high degree of guilt and a desire for more purpose (prisons, hospitals, AIDs patients). You don't find high rates of conversion in affluent neighborhoods, especially affluent neighborhoods in non-Christian countries. Most Christians don't even try to convince people of the truth of the Christian Gospel because "religion" has become a buzzword that should be kept in the closet.

If your form of proselytizing is to have Christ be "seen through you" (aka be Christ-like), then you aren't proselytizing at all because you yourself claimed that non-Christians can be Christ-like. So if you are trying to do that practice-what-you-preach thing whereby you lead by example and people come to Christ because they are intrigued by your Christ-like actions, then you have a major problem because you've admitted that a non-Christian could be showing the exact same example to other people by striving to be Christ-like!

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

{A}So it would be an impossibility to know Christ unless you knew and kept His commandments...right? The interesting thing, LRLRL, is {B}that those that know Him are aquited from the penalty of NOT keeping the Commandments. We are set free by the Grace of God through faith. So then, to be sure that you know Christ, {C}you must obey the Commandments in WORD and in DEED and the SPIRIT of the law. But you and I are guilty of NOT doing that.

Let me summarize what you just said as I understand it:

{A}It's impossible to know Christ unless you keep His commandments.
{B}Once you know Christ, you no longer have to keep His commandments.
{C}Neither you nor I (nor anyone) is able to keep His commandments.

{C} trumps {A} meaning that it's impossible to get to {B}.

As an analogy of your argument:
{A}It's impossible to fly unless you grow wings
{B}Once you start to fly, you no longer need wings (somehow )
{C}Neither you nor I (nor anyone) is able to grow wings.

Therefore, we have to be forgiven. A Payment has to be made for our law-breaking.

I can agree with you that we need to be forgiven. Why must a payment be made? How does payment follow from forgiveness? If someone comes to me saying their sorry and I choose to forgive them, I can do just that. I can say with all my heart and soul, "I forgive you and I thank you for being humble enough to come to me willingly and apologize." I don't need them to pay me five bucks...similarly, I don't understand why the Christian God can't just forgive people when they honestly and earnestly come to him asking.

Christ did that for His People on the Cross.

How, exactly, is this a form of payment? In what currency? (I'm not being facetious, any payment must be in some currency whether its money, chickens, souls, happiness, whatever....so what was the form of payment?)

Therefore, you must know Christ by saving,converting faith in order to be a Christian.

I don't understand how this follows either. Why couldn't Christ have just done it and saved us all without the doctrine- and culture-dependent fact that we have to accept him in a specific way? Also, I've already mentioned the impossibility of knowing him based on your conditions above.

Jesus said:
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."John 3:16

So,the Bible says to be a Christian you must have your breaking of God's Law's forgiven. In order to do that you must know Him.[/quote]

I can accept this. Its more clear-cut as to what a Christian is: if you profess you know the God of the Bible, then you are a Christian. None of this wishy-washy "fake" Christian business. This is a purely doctrinal definition of Christianity with no dependence on how you act. You can be an axe-murderer who kills hundreds but still profess to know God. Therefore, this axe-murderer is still a perfectly good Christian, forgiven of all his sins. I can understand this definition. Its clear-cut. Well-defined.

But it also makes any practical morality utterly pointless. Anyone who professes to know God and call themselves a Christian is automatically, by definition, a Christian. Its a very functional definition.

I think you know what to do.

I'm going to go make tortellini. That's what I'm going to do

 

[pinkputter]

This is inspired by another thread:

Christian: "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God."

Non-Christian: "Given that you've learned about god from men, in the first place.... I think you're stuck in a paradox."

Do people agree? If you had never heard about God, Jesus, Christian theology, the crucifixion, salvation, heaven etc from some person, could you still be a Christian?

You likely heard about these things from parents, pastors, friends etc. And they heard it from parents, pastors, friends etc. And so on. The Bible was also written by people who then passed on these written works to others and at some point or another someone claimed they were inspired. So is the whole paradox solved via the "faith card" where you say you have faith that the Bible is not of men but of God? But men still had to first tell you it was inspired, right? Its not like I can just pick up Catcher In The Rye and say, "Hey, this is inspired!" Someone likely TOLD you the Bible was inspired at some point, I doubt you came to that doctrinal conclusion on your own, or did you?

No one magically comes to be a Christian and know Jesus Christ and follow the god of the Bible if they are isolated from Christians. Why doesn't this ever happen?

We learn from the Bible, which is infallible, Word of God. I don't know what anyone else has said, but that is what our faith is based on.

Also, what you are talking about HAS happened. The most famous example is Bhudda, but instead of giving acknowledgement to the Christian God, he thought himself to be self-important/self-righteous, and as we all know concluded that he alone was enlightened, and not a gift from God.

I'm sure there are other Christian examples as well. I know a Christian woman who said God told her a word so big she had to look it up once. And she is in her 60's not on meds for anything, wholistically healthy.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

We learn from the Bible, which is infallible, Word of God. I don't know what anyone else has said, but that is what our faith is based on.

Do you just believe it is infallible for no reason or is there some sort of basis whereby you come to this faith?

Also, what you are talking about HAS happened. The most famous example is Bhudda, but instead of giving acknowledgement to the Christian God, he thought himself to be self-important/self-righteous, and as we all know concluded that he alone was enlightened, and not a gift from God.

Considering you spelled Buddha wrong, I'm not sure how well you've researched the man or the philosophy which came from it. I am most familiar with Tibetan Buddhism and from my understanding, the Buddha reincarnates multiple times and Siddhartha Gautama was just one reincarnation of the Buddha. Also, Buddhism actually makes the opposite claim that you said: they say that ANYONE can become enlightened via practices meditations and living the Eightfold Path.

Also, you do realize that Jesus claimed he was God, right? If he was wrong, he was the most self-righteous of all the major spiritual leaders. You only think Buddha was self-righteous because you have already assumed he was wrong. If you were a Buddhist you would simply be saying that Jesus was the self-righteous one and Buddha was the one with the gift.

I'm sure there are other Christian examples as well. I know a Christian woman who said God told her a word so big she had to look it up once. And she is in her 60's not on meds for anything, wholistically healthy.

This is a really strange example of someone receiving "wisdom" from God. Do you know what the word was? I hope it was something really, really vitally important to the human race and not just antidisestablishmentarianism.

 

[pinkputter]

Do you just believe it is infallible for no reason or is there some sort of basis whereby you come to this faith?



Considering you spelled Buddha wrong, I'm not sure how well you've researched the man or the philosophy which came from it. I am most familiar with Tibetan Buddhism and from my understanding, the Buddha reincarnates multiple times and Siddhartha Gautama was just one reincarnation of the Buddha. Also, Buddhism actually makes the opposite claim that you said: they say that ANYONE can become enlightened via practices meditations and living the Eightfold Path.

Also, you do realize that Jesus claimed he was God, right? If he was wrong, he was the most self-righteous of all the major spiritual leaders. You only think Buddha was self-righteous because you have already assumed he was wrong. If you were a Buddhist you would simply be saying that Jesus was the self-righteous one and Buddha was the one with the gift.

Well I need to do some research on the history of the Bible. I guess you could say that's one area that's lacking. But that is for me PERSONALLY. You can judge all you want but I do look to other christians for guidance and would assume that by now one of the more well-versed divinity scholars I've known over the years would have discovered that by now.

As for BuddHa (forgive the typo) I don't really care if he says others can be enlightened too. Oh, how kind of him, to GRANT us that honor. He doesn't give any acknowledgement to any sort of god for such a "gift." that is the definition of self-righteous. You think youre good enough on your own. As for Jesus, He is just the opposite. I have to wonder how much you have studied about the Christ! This is what He is KNOWN for doing. He always, gave glory to the Father. He says in the NT, "Which of you calls me "good"? I am not good on my own, but rather good because I am from the Father who sent me. Now, if He is not God, as He says He is, there are only two other options. Lunatic or liar. It's the Lord, lunatic, or liar argument, and I'd be happy to discuss that with you.

 

[Chesterton]

If doctrine is not the defining characteristic of a religion then what is religion?

Correct doctrine is for our benefit, like having good parents is beneficial. But if a child is raised by criminal parents, he could still be a good child at heart but less would be expected of him. But if you have have good parents (or good doctrine), you're expected to abide by that and not reject it.

If a man stumbled out of the woods and told you about this guy named Bob who is both human and divine at the same time and he came to save humanity and have a relationship with them, this man would be called crazy or heretic. He would not be accepted with open arms as Christians around the world say, "Look, someone has converted to Christianity without being told about it!"

They would condemn him for blasphemy. With your logic, the people who worship(ed) Quetzalcoatl, Osiris and Amitabha could be 'Christians' because many of the ideas present roughly align with Jesus and Christianity.

I do think individual people who externally worshipped other gods could be in some sense Christians, at times and places where they don't know better. If one's heart is truly attuned to seeking truth and love, then regardless of the externals one is seeking Christ, because that's what Christ is.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Correct doctrine is for our benefit, like having good parents is beneficial. But if a child is raised by criminal parents, he could still be a good child at heart but less would be expected of him. But if you have have good parents (or good doctrine), you're expected to abide by that and not reject it.

I very much like this analogy. Thanks

Do you think doctrine is necessary?

I do think individual people who externally worshipped other gods could be in some sense Christians, at times and places where they don't know better. If one's heart is truly attuned to seeking truth and love, then regardless of the externals one is seeking Christ, because that's what Christ is.

Would these people, in your opinion, still be forgiven by God and would therefore be able to enter into his presence in heaven?

 

[elman]

Its not bogus, its just paradoxical because apparently the minds of men are horribly flawed. So if you heard something from someone who is in his own consciousness with his own interpretations and his own cultural biases, then you're forced to assume these flaws have obscured the truth and everything which he tells you is suspect. Whether he is telling you about Christianity or quantum physics, everything he says is suspect because, according to the quote from my OP "men are not wise enough for me to put my faith in them over God".

So how do you avoid men as being a necessary link between you and your knowledge of Christian 'truth'?

I don't avoid it, nor can we avoid it, but I agree every man is suspect because everymen makes mistakes. This includes by the way all the things written by men, such as the Bible. It is my job to discern the false and the true. I will not do that perfectly hence the importance of grace.