From: hedrick@farside.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Date: 16 Dec 92 06:33:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:

>: again for our salvation (including yours and mine) -- yet I also do not 
>: believe that you or any atheist will fry in hell for your atheistic views
>: or even your non-Christian religious beliefs, if you have any, to receive
>: the healing power of this salvation.
>: Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)

>I find the above statement interesting Gerry.  Isn't it a basic tenent of
>Christianity that the only way to salvation is through Jesus?  (i.e. that
>to be saved you *must* believe in him)
>I don't see you saying this and was wondering how you reconcile this
>difference?

My basic perspective is similar to Gerry's.  You're quite right that
Christians have been exclusive since as far back in Church history as
we can see.  So to adopt a position like this requires a certain
amount of reconstruction.  There's actually some Biblical basis for
such a reconstruction.  (1) While there's not a lot of evidence, Jesus
seems to have accepted the Jewish concept of the "righteous Gentile".
He was willing to deal with a Roman centurion who was in that position
(Luke 7), as well as a Samaritan (John 4).  In no case did he suggest
that anyone should convert.  (2) Paul's discussion in Rom 2 is quite
explicit about saying that people will be judged in accordance with
how much they know: ("When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature
what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they
do not have the law.")  Paul's discussion of judgement is almost
always talking about standards within the Church.  As he comments in 1
Cor 5:12 "For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not
those inside the church who you are to judge?"  (3) When Paul and
Jesus talk about judgement, it is always based on actions.  As Jesus
says, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved, but those who
do God's will.  In Matthew's most explicitly discussion of judgement
(in Mat 25), not only are some people surprised that they are damned,
but some are surprised that they are saved -- they didn't know they
were serving Christ.

Now there are problems with all of these passages: The first 2 sets
are primarily dealing with the question of whether you need to become
Jewish, not Christian.  Yet the spirit of Rom 2 seems pretty clearly
in favor of accepting non-Christians who carry out the spirit of
Jesus' teachings.  Protestants will argue to their dying breath
against any hint that salvation might be based on actions rather than
faith, because of "justification by faith".  As a Protestant, I
certainly understand why people are afraid of "works righteousness":
it leads very quickly to legalism, and all kinds of unfortunate
religious practices.  I would not want to say that God simply totals
up brownie points.  Yet I think there's room in the teachings of both
Jesus and Paul for someone who hears the call of God in their heart
and responds, without being a Christian.

In my opinion, the problem is not so much with Jesus or Paul, but with
Christian history.  Christianity turned into a control-oriented
religion very quickly indeed.  It's only fairly recently that attempts
are being made to create a Christianity that is not control-oriented.
These attempts are still regarded by most Christians as perversions of
Christianity.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism