PDA

View Full Version : Population, Christianity, and Justice and Mercy


Bikewer
2nd July 2006, 08:22 AM
One of my major beefs with Christianity.....Christian sects generally agree that "salvation" is conditional on having some sort of acceptance of Jesus' message.
In the Catholic tradition, this involves baptism, then living one's life in accordance with church teachings on avoiding sin and doing good works. Somewhat simpler in the Protestant tradition, where one must only "accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior". Be "born again", as they say.

One's chances of making it to one's eternal reward range from slim (in the Catholic tradition) to none (Protestant) if one is not a member of the particular faith.

That would be all very well if the all-just, all-merciful God had done a little better job of getting the word out.

At the time of Christ, the population of the Earth is reckoned to have been at least 300 million people, possibly double that. According to the book I read recently, 1491, the population of the Americas prior to the arrival of Europeans was at least 30 million.
So, when Jesus does his thing, and opens the door for salvation, you'd have thought that God could have announced this fact world-wide in some way.
But not so. Instead, Jesus does his thing in a backwater of the Roman Empire and no one much hears of it at all for at least 50 years, at which point we have a number of different Jesus cults who are all at odds with each other over the nature and purposes of Jesus, God, and much else as well.
It takes several hundred years for these nascent Christian groups to all get on more-or-less the same page, and realize that there's a lot of convertin' to do..

By this point, several generations have passed and many hundreds of millions of people would have been born and lived out their lives and died in utter ignorance of "The Good News". Presumably roasting in Hell.

By 1000 years, much of Europe has been Christianized, but much of that by fiat. "By george, I'm the king, and I've converted. So, all my peasants are now Christian too!" "Right, boss."
How many folks are now roasting due to a lack of salvation at this point?

European Christians don't get around to proselytizing the rest of the world for another 500 years or so, when Conquistadores and others fare forth, spreading the word and smallpox, measles, and the flu.
The author of 1491 says that as many as 9 out of 10 native Americans may have been killed by European diseases, both in North and South America.
Jesuits, faring up the Mississippi in the 1600s, reported wall-to-wall villages, towns, and cultivated fields up the entire length of the river. Returning 150 years later, they found devastation and death; the entire area depopulated.

Again, none of these people, many millions, were "saved" in the Christian sense. This story is repeated all over the rest of the world; Euros did not find Australia until the 1700s. I think it's safe to say that despite heavy-duty missionary work, sattelite TV, radio, free bibles, and whatever, there are still people in remote or politically-controlled areas of the world that live out their lives and die in complete ignorance of Jesus, original sin, salvation, or any other of the trappings of Christianity.

Where does this leave the notion of God's infinite mercy? Of justice?

Even as children in Catholic school, we saw the inequity of this scenario. "But father, what about some poor native living in the middle of the jungle who never saw a missionary? Would he go to hell?"
The priests would make some airy statement about God giving such people some sort of "test" to see if they were worthy of heaven. Meanwhile we lucky Catholics got to go to confession if we screwed up...
A difficult question for the Christian thinkers, I'd imagine.

Foster Zygote
2nd July 2006, 08:33 AM
A difficult question for the Christian thinkers, I'd imagine.

For the thinkers, yes. As for the non-thinkers it ain't no trouble at all.

Steven

ceo_esq
2nd July 2006, 12:46 PM
One of my major beefs with Christianity.....Christian sects generally agree that "salvation" is conditional on having some sort of acceptance of Jesus' message.

...

Even as children in Catholic school, we saw the inequity of this scenario. "But father, what about some poor native living in the middle of the jungle who never saw a missionary? Would he go to hell?"

Catechism 847 of your (former?) religion addresses this point: "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."

Other denominations' results may vary.

Yahzi
2nd July 2006, 05:21 PM
Catechism 847 of your (former?) religion addresses this point: "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."
Doesn't that rather imply that Catholics should not evangelize?

Because if they do a bad job of spreading the word - if people are exposed to the word, but turned off from it because of the character of the priest - then haven't they done that person a grevious injury?

What kind of arrogance does it take to risk someone else's eternal soul on the presumption that you are such a sterling model of grace that no one will be lost simply because they rejected you, and not God's word?

Oh, right, the kind of arrogance that makes you Pope...

:D

Bikewer
3rd July 2006, 06:49 AM
Those various South American natives who survived the diseases brought in by Cortez et al were "converted" at the points of guns and swords.

Likewise various North American natives who after being "pacified" by good Christians were stripped of their culture and "exposed" to Christian beliefs....

"Seeking God with a sincere heart"....Hmmm, would that include Xango-Baga, the crocodile god, or whatever animistic spirits these primitives would have believed in with great conviction?

Anti_Hypeman
3rd July 2006, 07:20 AM
Doesn't that rather imply that Catholics should not evangelize?


One should not evangelize without proof. If you tell someone about Jesus and they reject him based on lack of proof they are doomed.

I had a long discussion with a local xian nutter in one of these threads some time ago. His conclusion was that everybody that hears the word in any form is personally given proof by Jesus and if they reject him its a choice that leads to hell. Why Jesus wont reveal himself to these lost souls before they bump into a missionary is still a mystery.

If someone yells JESUS SAVES at you from a passing train that is enough. Jesus will then personally contact you and if you reject him you are of the devil. Everybody on the planet that has heard about Jesus knows its true because the universal truth detector is built in, a present from god.

They cant understand the fact that other religions get the same warm fuzzy feelings. Praying makes them feel good and thats the undeniable proof.

[christian response to everything]

Dont you see what you are doing? You are putting god on the stand. We cannot judge god. Who are we to think we can convict or understand god?

[/christian response to everything]

ceo_esq
3rd July 2006, 09:35 AM
Doesn't that rather imply that Catholics should not evangelize?

Because if they do a bad job of spreading the word - if people are exposed to the word, but turned off from it because of the character of the priest - then haven't they done that person a grevious injury?

What kind of arrogance does it take to risk someone else's eternal soul on the presumption that you are such a sterling model of grace that no one will be lost simply because they rejected you, and not God's word?

Oh, right, the kind of arrogance that makes you Pope...

:D

Good to see you back around these parts.

ceo_esq
3rd July 2006, 09:38 AM
Those various South American natives who survived the diseases brought in by Cortez et al were "converted" at the points of guns and swords.

Is that right? Do you have any reputable sources for how prevalent a missionary practice that was?

kedo1981
3rd July 2006, 09:49 AM
Still, you would think the infallible word of God would have this very important point covered.
Easiest answer to this ? No need to even ask because it’s a myth.

Bikewer
3rd July 2006, 07:13 PM
I believe that the attempt to impose Christianity on both South and North American natives as Europeans took over their lands is pretty well documented; there are many first-person accounts from Amerinds who were essentially stripped of their culture while on reservations.

Still, this was not always particularly successful, and there are many instances of various natives simply assimilating their own religious beliefs into the Christian mythology. It was fairly simple to see the "Blessed Virgin" as an analog of the various Indian female figures, such as Spider Woman.

Foster Zygote
3rd July 2006, 07:47 PM
I believe that the attempt to impose Christianity on both South and North American natives as Europeans took over their lands is pretty well documented; there are many first-person accounts from Amerinds who were essentially stripped of their culture while on reservations.

Still, this was not always particularly successful, and there are many instances of various natives simply assimilating their own religious beliefs into the Christian mythology. It was fairly simple to see the "Blessed Virgin" as an analog of the various Indian female figures, such as Spider Woman.

Hell, it was easy to see the "Blessed Virgin" as an analog of a Roman Fertility goddess.

Even more damning than the few surviving accounts of Native American witnesses are the numerous accounts of the European invaders themselves, not least of which are the records of the Church.

Steven

ceo_esq
3rd July 2006, 09:11 PM
I believe that the attempt to impose Christianity on both South and North American natives as Europeans took over their lands is pretty well documented; there are many first-person accounts from Amerinds who were essentially stripped of their culture while on reservations.

I was asking for documentary support specifically regarding the prevalence of forced conversion as a missionary practice. Obviously, I recognize that great violence was done to both person and property of the New World natives, and many aspects of their indigenous culture were forcibly suppressed. Of course, with perhaps sporadic exceptions this is attributable to colonialists rather than missionaries. As far as conversions are concerned, I am not aware that forced conversion was at all a widespread practice among missionaries in the New World, having been strictly forbidden on several occasions by Rome, as in this 1537 bull:

[T]he said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and ... they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; ... [and] the said Indians and other peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the word of God and by the example of good and holy living.

If I recall correctly, Prescott's classic History of the Conquest of Mexico recounts how Cortes, after some misguided and inept attempts at playing missionary (which led to a couple of ignominious spectacles of forced "conversions"), was persuaded by clerical and other advisors to renounce non-peaceful evangelization and to leave missionary tasks to the Church. This illustrates a tension between the methods and goals of the Church and those of the Crown that would erupt into open conflict later on.


Even more damning than the few surviving accounts of Native American witnesses are the numerous accounts of the European invaders themselves, not least of which are the records of the Church.

How familiar you are with these accounts and records? The ones I have encountered in my own studies paint an often despicable picture of oppression at the hands of the European colonial powers but, in fairness, quite a different picture of the Church's missionary activity. I hope you will more specifically identify what you're alluding to here.