An Isolated Believer?

[leenielou]

According to Christian doctrine, only those who accept Jesus and believe in Him and His sacrifice for the world will be allowed into Heaven.

I was wondering (as you do); if (this is in theory, of course) someone was raised completely in isolation, lived their complete life in isolation away from all forms of media and other people, would they be able to believe in a God? Would they eventually reach the conclusion in their mind that there must be an ultimate maker?

It's rather like the old "tree falling in a forest" adage, except for this: Let's say that there is a God for arguments sake. Would God allow the isolated person to have the knowledge of Jesus so as to get into Heaven, since there was no other possible way that they could have found out?

It confused me. :shrug:

[Silvilocks]

The only religion I know of that takes any position on this point is the Jehovahs Witnesses. They firmly divide people into two - those who have the opporunity to learn about god and Jesus, and those who don't. I'm a bit fuzzy on the next bit as it's been a while but IIRC, when Judgment Day comes, those who had the opportunity to learn and chose not, to will just be gone (oblivion, eternal sleep, whatever). Those who didn't will be resurrected and have a further period on Earth and be given the choice to learn about god or reject him. As I understand it, this means people from throughout history up to the present, so bearing in mind the numbers involved I don't think we're really talking earthly Earth. At the end of this period (I can't remember how long it lasts) those who reject god join the rest in oblivion. Those who have accepted god throughout time have eternal life, with 144,000 going to heaven as a sort of supreme council, and the rest of the righteous get eternal life in an earthly paradise.

I've never liked that theory, simply because the 144,000 sounds a bit selective to me.

As to your other points, I think someone living as you describe probably would invent a god - that seems to be part of human nature. But whether that belief would be recognised by a real (for the purpose of this argument) god goes into several topics, most of which are already being discussed in this forum.

Good topic though - but twisty.

[Benzo]

According to anthropology, since the beginning of times, people have worshipped some gods or had some spiritual content in their lives. So, to me, that answers your question. The problem to me is: Did human beings invent God(s) or did god(s) decide to manifest themselves in different manners?

To be or not to be, That is the question.

[vickygirl4]

Human beings have worshipped some spiritual being or beings throughout history, but they worshipped these beings as a society. I doubt that a person living in isolation, without the influence of others, will believe in God. The person may invent a god of their own to worship, or worhsip nature, or some other object, but the person will not become a believer in some established religion such as Christianity.

But is religion really a part of human nature? If so, then why do say many people choose to abandon religion? Are all atheists and agnostics going against their nature?

[Morgoth]

Human beings substitute what they don't know with something that they cannot conceive, so "why are we here?" is answered with an equally unknowable claim "because God(s) put us here," however, the latter gives form to the unknown and means that people can go from A to B without wondering how. They simply put it down to *something* doing *something* to make it so and that is seen as perfectly acceptable way of thinking as well as keeping people comforted. Even I see nothing wrong with that type of mentality. It does no harm to believe that something exists to make things the way they are. What's important is to remember that we are not a stoic species (though some try to be) and we are not a lazy species. Our drive is to explore the unknown and push the boundaries out further in our understanding of the universe in which we inhabit. But because we are driven by our passions in exploring, that has given human beings too much arrogance in their claims, so a harmless belief in *something* existing to perform *something* changes and that *something* over time, becomes a tool for those who seek to influence others and enforce a view onto others, which of course causes harm.

So for me, the isolated person who forms the idea that *something* exists to cause all that we see is probably experiecing the most natural belief that anyone could possibly have. It would be an un-caused view. No indoctrination, no hypocrisy, no ritual or reasoning needed.

[drummer]

According to Christian doctrine, only those who accept Jesus and believe in Him and His sacrifice for the world will be allowed into Heaven.

I was wondering (as you do); if (this is in theory, of course) someone was raised completely in isolation, lived their complete life in isolation away from all forms of media and other people, would they be able to believe in a God? Would they eventually reach the conclusion in their mind that there must be an ultimate maker?

It's rather like the old "tree falling in a forest" adage, except for this: Let's say that there is a God for arguments sake. Would God allow the isolated person to have the knowledge of Jesus so as to get into Heaven, since there was no other possible way that they could have found out?

It confused me. :shrug:

Has anyone watched the show Joan of Arcadia? It is about a girl who sees visions of God but the cool part is that the visions change form everytime she sees Him.
That got me thinking. Maybe that's what God does. Maybe He comes to you how you need to see him. So then, maybe no one really is an isolated believer?
I just can't see God plopping someone down in the middle of nowhere, causing them not to know about HIm, and then blame them for it. That would really stink.

[leenielou]

that's exactly what I was thinking, drummer. I couldn't quite grasp the notion of God sending someone to Hell even if it wasn't their fault for not believing in him. I haven't seen that show, but I will look out for it now.

That got me thinking. Maybe that's what God does. Maybe He comes to you how you need to see him. So then, maybe no one really is an isolated believer?

That would provide a nice explanation for other religons and Gods in the world. But that links to Ba'hai faith...and I'm sure that that concept must be in another thread. :)

[Tane]

This is an interesting hypothesis, I mean you could include a child who by no fault of there own was never made or told they had to attend church, does not say even know of such teachings happening in the world. Would a child be punished if they died before they reached an age of understanding that they have the right to learn this type of teaching and understanding or are there exceptions if god does exist? I think if you believe in yourself then I guess in a way you believe in god as it did create all of use, if there is such a thing as god.

[~Tonks~]

This idea always intrigued me, as it brought to attention the issue of being judged on who you are as a person and your behavior as opposed to the worship and homage of a deity. If a lone individual on an island who never has any exposure to the outside world for the entire duration of his/her life dies (or just say someone in a small community in the same circumstances, none of whom have any knowledge whatsoever of Jesus and the Christian religion) and is sent to hell simply because they never had exposure to it and a chance to follow it, then that really speaks for itself. However if they go to heaven because they are judged on the basis of how they lived and behaved, then this implies that if one knows of God and Jesus then from that moment on the judgement rests on whether or not you choose to go with it. It seems to me that being "witnessed to" and informed of a God one must believe in and worship in order not to burn in hell implies the theft a human being's right to be looked at for the many possible benevolent, charitable, ethical things he or she has done and who they are as a person, instead of being judged by what faith they adhere to and how they practice it. This to me says so about the real principle behind organized religion - you don't need it to be a good person, but you do need to believe and follow in order to not burn in hell, and the control tactics there are asphyxiating.

[Lady Greyjoy]

I was taught during my tenure in Catholic School that there are two types of baptism. The first type is the concious decision to accept Christ and be baptized. The second type occurs when a person in complete isolation lives a blameless (or mostly blameless) life although they never hear the message of Christianity.

Wether this is the current line of belief among most Christians, I wouldn't know, but that is what I was taught.

[leenielou]

The second type occurs when a person in complete isolation lives a blameless (or mostly blameless) life although they never hear the message of Christianity.


I guess the only thing to counter that is that if a person has lived in isolation, then how would they know the standard norms of right and wrong? Away from any sort of society, would it be possible for a person to judge 'right' in the same way that we do, in order to live a 'blameless' life?

[Lady Greyjoy]

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. :)

By complete isolation, I mean complete isolation from the message of christianity. E.G. A tribe living in an untouched part of South America.

I don't truly believe this however, but I was taught this in Catholic school, so I wonder if this varies from sect to sect.

[leenielou]

Ah, okay :) I must say I don't think I have ever heard of that before, perhaps it is a particularly compassionate area of the religion?!

But I guess that what I posted does still apply in the sense of extreme isolation from everyone. It must be hard to decide what is right or wrong without any standards.

[PhoenixUK]

The official Christian line is that ideally you should receive an absolute baptism soon after birth (with exceptions, i.e. Quakers who do not baptise and Baptists who only baptise in adulthood). However, adults can then be baptised in conditional baptism as long as they accept their faith and repent their sins (e.g. Catholic sacrament of confession). Jesus said "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." (John Ch3), however, teaching is that it is necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

However, Christian teaching on evangelisation is that we should "Go and teach all nations, baptising them" (Matt Ch17), so if people are ignorant of baptism, it's kind of our fault.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that when the baptism of water becomes a physical or moral impossibility, eternal life may be obtained by the baptism of desire (a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire of baptism) or the baptism of blood (obtaining of the grace of justification by suffering martyrdom for the faith of Christ), which is assumedly what you're refering to...

A very technical guide to it it found here (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#IX), though it's only really readable if you're incredibly clever (not me, then :p).

[Lady Greyjoy]

Here is the salient point...I knew I heard this in Catholic school :)

The baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) of baptism.

The Latin word flamen is used because Flamen is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. The "baptism of the Holy Ghost" is a term employed in the third century by the anonymous author of the book "De Rebaptismate".

The efficacy of this baptism of desire to supply the place of the baptism of water, as to its principal effect, is proved from the words of Christ. After He had declared the necessity of baptism (John, iii), He promised justifying grace for acts of charity or perfect contrition (John, xiv): "He that loveth Me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him and will manifest myself to him."

And again: "If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and will make our abode with him." Since these texts declare that justifying grace is bestowed on account of acts of perfect charity or contrition, it is evident that these acts supply the place of baptism as to its principal effect, the remission of sins.

[morgiana]

What about all those people who aren't Christians are they not going to heaven?

There has been God(s) since Neanderthal Man. Christians don't have a monopoly on God. In fact Christianity is a very young religion, so what about all those people who died before Jesus?

I grew up in a Christian enviroment but have changed beliefs in adulthood. I really hope God is not as judgemental as religion is.

I think God Loves everyone equally. He even loves the people who don't believe in him. Whether he uses belief in Jesus as a criterion for entry I'm thinking NOT. There are a lot of Buddists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans and so many others and I can't believe that God would turn them away.

Everyone has the opportunity at some point in there life when they experience something beyond themselves. This is God without all the strings attached by religion.

[Asrana]

God cannot punish the misinformed or uninformed. It wouldn't make any sense so if a person lived in complete isolation, it would no be their fault if they didn't believe in God, so unless they lived a completly sinful life, I don't see any reason why the person wouldn't be able to go to heaven.

On a side note, I don't think it matters what religion your in or what kind of god you worship just as long as you live a good life. like Morgaina said