NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is meant mainly for Christians, as this assumes that their is a God, and it is the Christian God. Please leave any comments about God not existing, at the door.

I have a relative that is in his late 50s and he had a stroke recently. As a result of that, his mind is not where it should be. Well, the man during his life and normal mind, wasn't a believer, or at least a committed one from what I know. Anyways, now that he is handicapped from this stroke, he is constantly cursing, taking the lords name in vain, and saying outrageous things.

I was wondering, since he wasn't a believer when he was in his right mind, and now that he isn't in a right mind and he is doing all this stuff, and he can't comprehend the grace of God and repentance, is there salvation available for him? I mean, would God take it into consideration that he can't think right? In Christian belief, we think that salvation can be obtained all the way until we finally pass away, meaning that he would still have a chance at obtaining it. But how would he be able to, if he can't understand it?

When is a door not a door?

When it's ajar.

Southpark adressed this question in the two episodes "do the handicapped go to hell ?" and "probably".

More serious answer: it depends on the denomination.

Southpark adressed this question in the two episodes "do the handicapped go to hell ?" and "probably".

More serious answer: it depends on the denomination.

LOL how true. 20 bucks probably won't get you in. A Franklin, tho . . . ;)

Southpark adressed this question in the two episodes "do the handicapped go to hell ?" and "probably".

More serious answer: it depends on the denomination.


I remember those episodes. I especially loved the part when the priest was getting it on with the lady in the confessional box :D

Wait, can we back up for a moment?

Are there actually people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?

Wait, can we back up for a moment?

Are there actually people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?

I'm sure there are. I don't believe that, especially if they were born that way. But like if he had the chance beforoe, and didn't take it, and now still has a chance, but can't comprehend it, where does that leave him?

I think they are under grace like the little kids.....the whole age of accountability thing, some people can't ever really be accountable, because they don't understand.

I am beginning to think that it takes an active rejection of God to go to hell....and some people can't actively reject, because they don't understand.

Wait, can we back up for a moment?

Are there actually people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?

Y'all better worship Him, or He'll open a can o' whupass on yer soul!

/sarcasm, jic

I think they are under grace like the little kids.....the whole age of accountability thing, some people can't ever really be accountable, because they don't understand.

I am beginning to think that it takes an active rejection of God to go to hell....and some people can't actively reject, because they don't understand.



You know, I think you hit it with that right there.

I'm sure there are.

Well, yeah, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that, since there are people who believe all black people are going to Hell.

But I guess what I meant was, are there any remotely sane people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?


I don't believe that, especially if they were born that way. But like if he had the chance beforoe, and didn't take it, and now still has a chance, but can't comprehend it, where does that leave him?
Think of it this way:

Certain brain injuries or ailments effectively return a person to mental "childhood." They are no longer able to function, cognitively, as adults. This is physical, and is not something they can change by any action on their part.

To expect such an individual to show adult reasoning or adult judgment is as silly as it would be to expect a person who is paralyzed from the neck down to be able to swing dance. They are physically unable to perform certain functions. This doesn't mean they are bad or wicked or deserving of punishment. They're simply dealing with some physical limitations.

I think they are under grace like the little kids.....the whole age of accountability thing, some people can't ever really be accountable, because they don't understand.

I am beginning to think that it takes an active rejection of God to go to hell....and some people can't actively reject, because they don't understand.

So where does that leave us who don't reject god but see no reason to believe?

Trilby63;12733001']So where does that leave us who don't reject god but see no reason to believe?

sounds like you actively rejected.

sounds like you actively rejected.

Nope.. I try.. I try hard..

What about those who believe in God, but think you can never really comprehend or understand God because he's on another plane of existence?

People born without the ability to know God likely go to heaven; not being a priest, or God himself, I cannot give a definitive answer in that area.

As far as this person goes? Are you sure he's irrational to the point that he's for all intents and purposes brain-dead? Being pissed off doesn't make one irrational, after all, it just makes them unpleasant to be around.

People born without the ability to know God likely go to heaven; not being a priest, or God himself, I cannot give a definitive answer in that area.

If you found out that they go to Hell, would you still worship your God?


As far as this person goes? Are you sure he's irrational to the point that he's for all intents and purposes brain-dead?

A normal newborn child is not brain-dead, yet I think we could all agree that a newborn baby cannot realistically be expected to comprehend "God" or "heaven" or anything of the sort.

Brain-dead means dead. There are plenty of living individuals, mostly children but also some adults, who are not capable of grasping the concept of God.

I think they are under grace like the little kids.....the whole age of accountability thing, some people can't ever really be accountable, because they don't understand.

I am beginning to think that it takes an active rejection of God to go to hell....and some people can't actively reject, because they don't understand.
While I would like to think that...

And i can understand if the Mentally Handicapped was that way from birth... but how would that work in this situation.

the person was a committed non-believer before his stroke. thus wouldn't that fall under Actively Rejecting God?

For me, I think this would fall under the Grace of those family members who do believe.

(can't find the chapter/verse since I'm supposed to be working, but it's the one that talks about the husband being saved because of the Wife's faith and so forth.)

My suggestion Zilam... if you believe, pray for him.

Trilby63;12733035']Nope.. I try.. I try hard..
sounds like you gave up.
What about those who believe in God, but think you can never really comprehend or understand God because he's on another plane of existence?
I don't think anyone can truly comprehend God......I also think that I don't really know the answers to a lot of questions people ask me.

[QUOTE=Smunkeeville;12733049]sounds like you gave up.

QUOTE]

With all due respect, you don't know me.

Trilby63;12733059']With all due respect, you don't know me.

I am not due much respect at all. ;)

I don't know you, I only know what you post, you said "I see no reason to believe" and then "I try really hard" those don't seem to mesh well.

maybe you don't believe because you work from poor assumptions, or maybe you aren't ready to, or maybe you just can't......although I have never met a person in the third position without the qualifier of "right now"

maybe your experiences haven't led to believe, maybe they will, maybe they won't.

the person was a committed non-believer before his stroke. thus wouldn't that fall under Actively Rejecting God?

My understanding (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that this school of theology states the entire point of our mortal lives is for us to have the chance to learn, grow, and choose to embrace God.

In other words, the reason we exist on Earth in the first place is to give us a chance at "free will." We get a lifetime to sort things out and decide if we will accept Jesus/God or not.

My understanding is that our chance to choose God extends for the entire lifetime. If you don't accept God at age 18, you still can accept God at 28, or 48, or 88. Right up until the death bed, from what I hear. Your chance to choose God extends for your entire lifetime.

And it goes the other way, too. If you accept God at 18, but at 48 you decide to reject God, then that decision sticks.

Now, if a person suffers a stroke at age 50, and they survive but have impaired function, it would seem that they still haven't used up their "chance" to embrace God. They aren't dead. Their lifetime continues. It's just that now they're returned to a state of mental childhood.

That, to me, suggests that they should be viewed the way a child would be, in terms of "salvation." If a child dies while still mentally unable to grasp the concept of God, they fall under this concept of "grace" which Smunkee has mentioned.

Maybe if that child had grown up, she would have ended up rejecting God at age 48. Likewise, maybe the stroke patient would have discovered God at age 68, and would have converted.

Trilby63;12733035']Nope.. I try.. I try hard..

that might be the problem.

You might be trying too hard to find a reason to believe.

If you found out that they go to Hell, would you still worship your God?

Depends upon the rationale, though that's not important: what is important is that I answer your question without realizing it is a complex question fallacy.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

A normal newborn child is not brain-dead, yet I think we could all agree that a newborn baby cannot realistically be expected to comprehend "God" or "heaven" or anything of the sort.

"All intents and purposes." That's not an absolute nor certain definition of the term.

Brain-dead means dead. There are plenty of living individuals, mostly children but also some adults, who are not capable of grasping the concept of God.

Read above.

Btw, some brain dead happen to be children, but not all children happen to be brain dead.

Depends upon the rationale, though that's not important: what is important is that I answer your question without realizing it is a complex question fallacy.

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Sorry if I mistakenly assumed you worship God. Most people do, so it's my default assumption. My bad.


"All intents and purposes." That's not an absolute nor certain definition of the

Read above.

Btw, some brain dead happen to be children, but not all children happen to be brain dead.
Sorry, but I'm a neuroscientist. A child that is brain dead is a dead child. A dead person, child or adult, isn't "irrational" in any way, shape or form. It's dead. It's neither rational or irrational.

My understanding (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that this school of theology states the entire point of our mortal lives is for us to have the chance to learn, grow, and choose to embrace God.

In other words, the reason we exist on Earth in the first place is to give us a chance at "free will." We get a lifetime to sort things out and decide if we will accept Jesus/God or not.

My understanding is that our chance to choose God extends for the entire lifetime. If you don't accept God at age 18, you still can accept God at 28, or 48, or 88. Right up until the death bed, from what I hear. Your chance to choose God extends for your entire lifetime.

And it goes the other way, too. If you accept God at 18, but at 48 you decide to reject God, then that decision sticks.

Now, if a person suffers a stroke at age 50, and they survive but have impaired function, it would seem that they still haven't used up their "chance" to embrace God. They aren't dead. Their lifetime continues. It's just that now they're returned to a state of mental childhood.

That, to me, suggests that they should be viewed the way a child would be, in terms of "salvation." If a child dies while still mentally unable to grasp the concept of God, they fall under this concept of "grace" which Smunkee has mentioned.

Maybe if that child had grown up, she would have ended up rejecting God at age 48. Likewise, maybe the stroke patient would have discovered God at age 68, and would have converted.
While I do agree with you, there is one sticking point. Normally, when a person converts, he repents his sins. how does the affliction of mental incapability remove the sins that were committed before the Mental Handicapping?

(now breaking away from Zilam's relative and moving to generic person.)

If Mr A actively didn't believe, proudly proclaiming his athiesm. and after a stroke, ended up with a mental Handicap that reduced his mental capacity to that of a child, how does his current condition remove his sin of actively rejecting God?

However, the point I was trying to make is this... if Mr A's Christian friends do pray for him, for God to forgive him. That MIGHT allow Mr A Salvation because he can no longer make the choice himself, and that others still care enough to ask God to forgive Mr. A's sins.

Sorry if I mistakenly assumed you worship God. Most people do, so it's my default assumption. My bad.


non sequitur; how would you know either way based on my refutation of your fallacious argument?

Sorry, but I'm a neuroscientist. A child that is brain dead is a dead child. A dead person, child or adult, isn't "irrational" in any way, shape or form. It's dead. It's neither rational or irrational.

Read what I said about how I defined brain-dead, instead of supposing that I mean all children and handicapped are brain-dead.

This thread is meant mainly for Christians, as this assumes that their is a God, and it is the Christian God. Please leave any comments about God not existing, at the door.

I have a relative that is in his late 50s and he had a stroke recently. As a result of that, his mind is not where it should be. Well, the man during his life and normal mind, wasn't a believer, or at least a committed one from what I know. Anyways, now that he is handicapped from this stroke, he is constantly cursing, taking the lords name in vain, and saying outrageous things.

I was wondering, since he wasn't a believer when he was in his right mind, and now that he isn't in a right mind and he is doing all this stuff, and he can't comprehend the grace of God and repentance, is there salvation available for him? I mean, would God take it into consideration that he can't think right? In Christian belief, we think that salvation can be obtained all the way until we finally pass away, meaning that he would still have a chance at obtaining it. But how would he be able to, if he can't understand it?

Leave the man his dignity. He didn't believe before the stroke, so why worry about him caring even less now?

While I do agree with you, there is one sticking point. Normally, when a person converts, he repents his sins. how does the affliction of mental incapability remove the sins that were committed before the Mental Handicapping?


A good question, and I don't know what the "real" rules about this would be.

On the one hand, you're right: they've got a bunch of sins (one assumes) that they have not repented. On the other hand, they've been denied further opportunity to fully comprehend those sins, and to comprehend repenting and God. Maybe if they hadn't had that stroke, they would have found God in another year and would have repented.

Call it a draw?


(now breaking away from Zilam's relative and moving to generic person.)

If Mr A actively didn't believe, proudly proclaiming his athiesm. and after a stroke, ended up with a mental Handicap that reduced his mental capacity to that of a child, how does his current condition remove his sin of actively rejecting God?

It doesn't. But, again, we don't know what might have been.

The default human state is atheist. All of us are born lacking belief in God or gods. Children have to learn what God is, and must learn to understand their faith, before they can really embrace it in any meaningful way. In that respect, an atheist who is returned to "mental childhood" by an injury or disease is no different than any child born into this world.


However, the point I was trying to make is this... if Mr A's Christian friends do pray for him, for God to forgive him. That MIGHT allow Mr A Salvation because he can no longer make the choice himself, and that others still care enough to ask God to forgive Mr. A's sins.
Why?

I'm not trying to be a stinker, here, but honestly...why would that make any difference?

Surely God knows the full extent of Mr. A's mental state far better than any of us. Surely God knows the full extent of Mr. A's atheism, and his various sins, better than any of us. God already knows everything about Mr. A.

Are you suggesting that God can be bought off by prayer? That God would allow somebody into Heaven against God's better judgment, if enough people were to pray for that person?

How many people would need to be praying for Mr. A for this to work? What if Mr. A had only two living relatives praying for him? Compared to, say, somebody who has a huge family and all their coworkers praying for them? Is entrance to Heaven decided based on worldly popularity?

non sequitur; how would you know either way based on my refutation of your fallacious argument?

Um. What argument do you think you're talking about?


Read what I said about how I defined brain-dead, instead of supposing that I mean all children and handicapped are brain-dead.
I did read it. As a professional in the field, I'm informing you that your definition is wrong.

Um. What argument do you think you're talking about?

"If you found out he did, would you still believe in your God?"

The one you made mayhaps thirty minutes ago.

I did read it. As a professional in the field, I'm informing you that your definition is wrong.

Then that's all that was needed 'I disagree with your definition for no other reason than I am apparently an authority in the field of neuroscience.'

What should have come after, but did not, was a reason why my definition, under the context in which it was given, is wrong.

Still waiting.

"If you found out he did, would you still believe in your God?"

The one you made mayhaps thirty minutes ago.

That was a question. Identified by the "?" mark.

If you had answered in the resoundingly affirmative, I might have proceeded to argue with you. Though probably not, because I don't really care.


Then that's all that was needed 'I disagree with your definition for no other reason than I am apparently an authority in the field of neuroscience.'

Why? That would have been a lie. I disagree with you because your definition is incorrect. You'd be just as incorrect if I were a dentist or a plumber. It's just that, being a neuroscientist, I'm probably more aware of the correct definition of brain death than your average plumber would be.


What should have come after, but did not, was a reason why my definition, under the context in which it was given, is wrong.
I thought I had been pretty clear. You are wrong because the term "brain dead" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

If you are interested in reading more about brain death, I recommend you begin with introductory neuroscience texts such as Kandel et al.'s "Principles Of Neuroscience." It's important to understand the living brain, if you want to really appreciate what it means when the brain dies!

Look, it's really not that big of a deal. You made a minor mistake, in the grand scheme, and I don't want to totally hijack the thread. It just happens to be my field, and I think that when people are talking about death, souls, consciousness, reason, morality, etc., it's best to understand the correct usage of important terms. Understanding what "brain death" refers to is really relevant to this kind of conversation.

That was a question. Identified by the "?" mark.

If you had answered in the resoundingly affirmative, I might have proceeded to argue with you. Though probably not, because I don't really care.

Hence complex question fallacy, wherein answering is meant to trap the answerer in a loop of unsubstantiated assumptions.

I don't bite.

Why? That would have been a lie. I disagree with you because your definition is incorrect. You'd be just as incorrect if I were a dentist or a plumber. It's just that, being a neuroscientist, I'm probably more aware of the correct definition of brain death than your average plumber would be.

Whyso? You assume my definition was akin to my saying "All handicapped are braindead." That's not what I said. For all intents-and-purposes is not the way people define words in the absolute sense, and it's not my fault if you think otherwise.

I thought I had been pretty clear. You are wrong because the term "brain dead" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

If you are interested in reading more about brain death, I recommend you begin with introductory neuroscience texts such as Kandel et al.'s "Principles Of Neuroscience." It's important to understand the living brain, if you want to really appreciate what it means when the brain dies.

A lecture is not needed; I am fully aware what brain-death is in the literal sense. Too bad what I said was not meant to be taken so literally that the Dictionary Mafia need be called to my house to change my mind via knee-capping.

Hence complex question fallacy, wherein answering is meant to trap the answerer in a loop of unsubstantiated assumptions.

I don't bite.



Whyso? You assume my definition was akin to my saying "All handicapped are braindead." That's not what I said. For all intents-and-purposes is not the way people define words in the absolute sense, and it's not my fault if you think otherwise.



A lecture is not needed; I am fully aware what brain-death is in the literal sense. Too bad what I said was not meant to be taken so literally that the Dictionary Mafia need be called to my house to change my mind via knee-capping.
o_O

where have you been hiding?

Wait, can we back up for a moment?

Are there actually people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?

...Yes, yes there are.

...

I had some trouble with this type of question in my faith.
Not that it challenged my Faith in God.

It challenged my trust in certain men's interpretation of the Bible and of salvation and of God's Will.

The disabled, the innocent(children), the completely uninformed.

I have heard many things about the handicapped...quite a number I found distrubing and insulting to what I deem to be Christian Ideals.

Of course I also had trouble with the "Sinnless Heathen" or whatever term you would prefer to use.

I submitted a question...A burning building has people in it and --Insert Denomination Here-- chooses for whatever to not make helping these people their business. BUT, a --Insert Excluded Party Here-- does selflessly act to save the lives of these strangers.

Now while one could use the literal word to tell me man is not saved by his works...it is more accurately his works ALONE as i have read it.
And in this hypothetical instance ...the man would be saved on WORKs alone he would be saved by the faith in his heart. Not a identified faith, but a general faith in goodness and adherence to that principle to the point of self sacrifice...what could be more Christ like? I got more answers from Catholics and PRotestant alike that i didnt like on that question.



So, back to the handicapped...

I can not, and will accept that "He died for the Sins of the World" doesnt cover someone who CAN NOT repent, who CAN NOT seek salvation.

I am working on thesis of my own currently that will surely get me thrown head first from my church. But that is neither here nor there.

DO the mentally get damned for being incapable of meeting what some preacher claims is the final word on salvation?

I hardly believe so.

If you found out that they go to Hell, would you still worship your God?

This mean knowing for certain that there was a hell...a place of no greater possible suffering.

This would also mean knowing for certina there was a God.

Knowing there was a God capable of placing me in Hell for not worshipping him.


The question answers itself.

No, no, you misunderstand. The damage to his brain may cause hallucinations, which will actually cause him to be religious. Duuhh...

A good question, and I don't know what the "real" rules about this would be.

On the one hand, you're right: they've got a bunch of sins (one assumes) that they have not repented. On the other hand, they've been denied further opportunity to fully comprehend those sins, and to comprehend repenting and God. Maybe if they hadn't had that stroke, they would have found God in another year and would have repented.

Call it a draw? sure, but TBH, I wasn't thinking we were trying to 'win' anything. :p

The default human state is atheist. All of us are born lacking belief in God or gods. Children have to learn what God is, and must learn to understand their faith, before they can really embrace it in any meaningful way. In that respect, an atheist who is returned to "mental childhood" by an injury or disease is no different than any child born into this world. actually, wouldn't the default be Superstitious? the belief of presences and ghosts and other things we can't see? night terrors are usually abundant without any outside reinforcement.

Children have a basic belief. a trust that is not reliant on proof or evidence but on feelings and in a way... faith.

one of those beliefs? that their Mommy and Daddy will protect them, reguardless of past experiences or lack of.

I wouldn't call them Atheists... Agnostic maybe, but not Atheist. :p


Why?

I'm not trying to be a stinker, here, but honestly...why would that make any difference?

Surely God knows the full extent of Mr. A's mental state far better than any of us. Surely God knows the full extent of Mr. A's atheism, and his various sins, better than any of us. God already knows everything about Mr. A.

Are you suggesting that God can be bought off by prayer? That God would allow somebody into Heaven against God's better judgment, if enough people were to pray for that person? Prayers are how people communicate with God. so it's not so much as being 'bought off' but people giving voice to one who cannot speak for themselves.

also, there are some verses in the bible that suggest that other's Grace can save those who don't believe. (the one about family comes to mind.)

How many people would need to be praying for Mr. A for this to work? What if Mr. A had only two living relatives praying for him? Compared to, say, somebody who has a huge family and all their coworkers praying for them? Is entrance to Heaven decided based on worldly popularity? dunno. All you really need, is to start with one.

This mean knowing for certain that there was a hell...a place of no greater possible suffering.

This would also mean knowing for certina there was a God.

Knowing there was a God capable of placing me in Hell for not worshipping him.


The question answers itself.

Only if we assume you aren't a principled enough person to suffer eternal torture for the sake of standing up to the great cosmic bully.

This thread is meant mainly for Christians, as this assumes that their is a God, and it is the Christian God. Please leave any comments about God not existing, at the door.
and where is this door you speak of?

Only if we assume you aren't a principled enough person to suffer eternal torture for the sake of standing up to the great cosmic bully.

No Greater Suffering.

And knowing 100% that it is real.

That is what Bottle's question is factored on, and while i am willing to suffer a great deal for my convictions...an eaternity of boundless suffering means i knuckle my forehead in compliance.

Now, I dont believe that it works that way.

But, if it did.

I am not so full of myself to believe I would shake the dice on damnation, speaking honestly that is.

No Greater Suffering.

And knowing 100% that it is real.

That is what Bottle's question is factored on, and while i am willing to suffer a great deal for my convictions...an eaternity of boundless suffering means i knuckle my forehead in compliance.

Now, I dont believe that it works that way.

But, if it did.

I am not so full of myself to believe I would shake the dice on damnation, speaking honestly that is.

Wasn't implying that I was a principled enough person either, just pointing out that there is, in fact, a choice.

Wasn't implying that I was a principled enough person either, just pointing out that there is, in fact, a choice.

True enough.

This thread is meant mainly for Christians, as this assumes that their is a God, and it is the Christian God. Please leave any comments about God not existing, at the door.
I tend to think of the whole "salvation" thing as something personal and not terribly important, which puts me outside the realm of Christianity, but I'll contribute anyway.

The question is one of whether the "faith" of which Christians speak is a property of the physical mind. Calling it faith would suggest that it is, in fact, a sort of ideological evaluation; it's something that you believe, and it's a part of your thinking process. This would undoubtedly leave it a property of the mind, and as a result those who cannot properly think would be denied either the freedom of the ability to have faith in such a sense.

To be honest, though, calling it faith is something of a misnomer. It is not the case that you "receive salvation" as a result of holding a specific set of beliefs about the world; salvation is the process of development that occurs after a specific commitment to the experienced (Christ). What happens at the point of experience is the engagement of the individual with the incarnate spirit, and what happens at the point of commitment is where the self decides to share in the identity of the spirit. The "Salvation" is really this state of oneness with spirit, and this does not necessarily require higher brain functions to attain.

That's what I reckon, anyway.

Come to think of it, if the soul is the source of consciousness and mind, wouldn't that mean that the mental handicapped basically have defective souls? Or does the physical somehow overwhelm the spirit and make the soul unable to function with the body as well as it should?

For those who are born mentally handicapped:

It depends on the severity of their handicap. I know a guy who had Down's Syndrome but he was lucid enough to know right from wrong and so was baptized and so forth. On the other hand, there are those who aren't able to know the difference, and for an action to be sinful it must be a conscious and willful disobedience to the will of God, then they are simply incapable of committing sin.

For them, Baptism is unecessary and in fact, impossible, since to be Baptized one must make a commitment to follow Jesus Christ and that can't happen if the person is mentally handicapped to such a severe degree.

As for a person who lives into adulthood and subsequently becomes mentally handicapped... I can't say for sure, but I suspect that individual would be judged based upon how they lived up to the point at which they were no longer mentally responsible for their actions. If a person was on track to gain Salvation but experiences an illness or accident that mentally incapacitates them, then anything they do after that point is beyond their own control so naturally they're not sinning. If, on the other hand, they always rejected Salvation and became handicapped, then they cannot choose Salvation at that point because they simply don't have the mental capacity to make such a commitment anymore.

Are there actually people who seriously consider worshiping a God that would send mentally-handicapped people to Hell for no reason other than their (unchosen) handicaps?

The profession of "missionary" exists primarily because of the belief that people who are not told about Jesus (i.e. those poor people on other continents) will go to hell. By travelling to them and enlightening them they can be saved.

If someone will go to hell due to not being told about God, consistent reasoning implies the ones who cannot comprehend will go there as well. In neither case it is after all the fault of the nonbeliever.

The profession of "missionary" exists primarily because of the belief that people who are not told about Jesus (i.e. those poor people on other continents) will go to hell. By travelling to them and enlightening them they can be saved.

If someone will go to hell due to not being told about God, consistent reasoning implies the ones who cannot comprehend will go there as well. In neither case it is after all the fault of the nonbeliever.

Not true. The general belief as I understand it is that those who have not heard about Christ but are good people go to heaven anyway, but people who haven't and aren't good do go to hell. The whole point of missionaries is so that the people who aren't good and haven't heard about it have a chance.

Or something like that. I'm not sure how accurate that was, not being a Christian myself.

This mean knowing for certain that there was a hell...a place of no greater possible suffering.

This would also mean knowing for certain there was a God.

Knowing there was a God capable of placing me in Hell for not worshipping him.


The question answers itself.

Sorry for the slight hijacking but is there even a hell? I mean, how do you reconcile eternal punishment with benevolence? I mean, the jews don't have a hell and the old testament god was a lot more badass than the god in the new testament..