[Starman]

I have often heard some Christians say that sincerity doesn't count if it is based on innacurate knowledge and that such ignorance can lead to ultimate destruction at the hands of God. I disagree with this concept. Do you?

They cite the following scripture to support their conclusion.

Romans 10

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. KJV

[orange]

I'm not Christian, but your question made me think of something I read a while back, so I hope you'll permit me to answer.

In the Chronicles of Narnia, in the last book of the series which I think is called "The Last Battle", there is the character of a sultan or sheik, who I think is meant to symbolize a Muslim person. He was "different" from some of the other people in his country in that he was kind and good, and had good intentions in everything he did. In any event, while most of the people from his country went the other way, he was allowed to go with Aslan. In fact, I think some of Aslan's followers were complaining about having the sultan among them, and Aslan gave them heck and said "It is as if he was with us all along" or something to that effect. So, it seems sincerity counted to C.S. Lewis, who was a well-respected and well educated Christian writer, one of my favorites. And I agree with him.

I'm not sure about those scriptures; I read and re-read them a couple of times, and yes they seem to suggest that sincerity isn't enough. But I'm sure there are other scriptures that talk about mercy, forgiveness, etc. Personally I just can't believe in a G-d who would punish people who didn't realize they were believing the wrong thing.

The other thing I can't help thinking about all the time is, how can people really know what is the truth anyhow? I mean, let's suppose Christianity is the true way - even if you tell people that, they may not believe you. Not because they are bad people, but because of the way our world is. We live in the information age, when there is so much being bombarded at us all the time... hundreds of different beliefs and philosophies to choose from, and all of them saying they are the only one. In the days when Jesus walked the earth, there was not so much information overload. I think it was easier to accept a religion as absolute truth then than it is now. There wasn't the same myriad of choices.

Anyway I think (or hope!) G-d knows this too and would take this all into consideration when judging each individual. Only G-d knows what's really in each person's heart.

[Starman]

Thanks for your response Orange

I view it the same way you do. I can't imagine God condeming people without taking into consideration all the factors involved in the case such as cultural influences, emotional health, education, heredity and so on. The problem is that sometimes things are seen as either black or white and no gray areas are allowed. Why? Maybe because allowing gray areas will cause uncertainty.

[RickJ]

Sincerety is exactly what it's all about! Whoever told you that is very wrong.

Here's more about that:
http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis...=841&ParType=a

Look especially at section 842+

[milliec]

Only G-d knows what's really in each person's heart.

I think, too, that sincerity is the very first thing to be valued.
and it's true that "Only God knows..."
the way Chava pointed out.
I'm not speaking right now only about religious matters, but about moral conduct in all life aspects: what good comes of knowledge which is used for harmful actions?
I find that acting sincerely makes me feel peaceful inside, and I can't find a way of thinking which might sustain an opposite manner of behavior.
I'm glad to see all of us agree!
Millie

[RickJ]

Amen, sister! :p

[milliec]

Sorry Rick, you might not have intended it to be so, but I find that the Smilie you chose twisted you message into a very offensive one.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're entitled to your own opinion, especially regarding me (whom you DON't know in person).
I'd only like to understand your message clearly.
Millie

[RickJ]

Sorry you misunderstood. "Big Smile" is what I use that smilie for.

[milliec]

Well then,
as "supermoderator" you might know whom you should talk to, in order to change it's legend. Right now it says "Stick out tongue". I'm not familiar, yet, to the private jokes of people around here!
We should keep in mind this thread was about sincerity - right?
SO, I take your reply at face value.
Millie
:rolleyes: (meant as :D meant, in turn as :) )

[RickJ]

I probably should not be using it since it says that... but yes, next time I'm rooting around, I'll see how difficult it is to either change the name of it... or even add a few others.

[orange]

Millie, I use :p a lot too. I never really thought of it as stick out tongue actually... even though that's what it's called. I think people mostly use it with a harmless joke, or having a bit of harmless fun. Like Rick says, I also think of it the same way as a big grin or regular smile, except I like it better because it's pink and cuter, haha. I use the big grin sparingly because I actually associate :D with being rude. Of course it isn't rude, but it seems that when people post something really offensive or disparaging in the forum, a lot of times they add :D to their posts, as if that would make it all better or something. So I have a negative association I think Freud would say, lol.

Maybe its name should be changed from stick out tongue to something else, if it's possible, that is.

In any event, thanks for pointing out that you find it offensive, Millie. I'll be extra careful in how I use it. I use it a LOT, and I never thought of it in that way. It's interesting how different people perceive things on a forum like this!

[milliec]

Dear Chava,
Thanks, you ARE very kind.
I think I've used :p myself once or twice, but I've always been careful for it to express what I felt: not sticking the tongue with malice, but as a way of expressing some kind of embarrassment or to soften a message through a "naughty" smiley. I don't say others use it with malice, I only say what I did or did not.
I've noticed you used it a lot, and I always perceived it was used in the way I've described above.
However, since we don't see or hear each others intonations, we might be careful what symbols we use in order to enable some feelings to accompany the written answer.
I too, refrain from using :D like you, I find it rude.
Thank you again.
Bye,
Millie

[Starman]

Sincerety is exactly what it's all about! Whoever told you that is very wrong.

Here's more about that:
http://www.kofc.org/publications/cis...=841&ParType=a

Look expecially at section 842+

No, I wasn't told that sincerity itself is wrong. I was told that sincerity alone is not enough
If the sincerity is accompanied by an erroneous manner of worship. I agree that sincerity
Should be accompanied by true worship.What I disagree with is the belief that God would
Use a condition of ignorance as a basis to deprive a person of eternal life and disregard
Sincerity in the process.

[RickJ]

I was addressing in general

sincerity doesn't count if it is based on innacurate knowledge

... and I, as you, disagree completely.

Initially, you did not say "erronious manner of worship"... but the same goes: Sincerety is what counts.

Romans 10:2-3 is only difficult if we throw out the door that our God is a loving God who is willing to take us all just as we are.

The person who says the above quote is not a person of "deep faith", but a person who is going along with something he's been taught - regardless that it is not only illogical, but not the gist what Christ and his Apostles taught.

I'd ask a person who says this "OK, then, please show me accurate knowledge" He would, of course, point to the Bible... then I would ask "OK, so please tell me which, among the thousands, of interpretations of the Bible is correct?" No matter who he names, we can name dozens of good Christian Biblical Scholars and Teachers and ask "so how is God telling you that all these folk are wrong?"

Arguments with folk like that seldom come to a good conclusion. I know I'm going off on a bit of a different angle here, but the root of this problem is twofold.
1. Sola Scriptura (the "Bible Alone"), and
2. The teaching that we can all equally interpret Scripture.
... neither of which is a Biblical teaching.

If two people who believe Scripture to be without error, but disagree about the interpretation of a particular passage, then there is nowhere that either of them can go. They can only walk away agreeing to disagree.

... which is OK... if both are still counting the other as a fellow Christian... but in this case the guy who says "sincerety does not count" is coming too close to "you're not saved" or "you're going to hell"... NOT a Christian teaching at all.

... sorry if I rambled too much :o

[milliec]

I regard religious matters as actually philosophic questions, because I think we, all human beings, bother with some main problems, to which different religions tried to give an answer which might appear specific to that very religion, but is actually universal.
Looking again at the thread, and especially at the last two entries, I've realized that it was, probably, a very specific Christian question, having to do with specific text.
Since I'm completely ignorant to Christian matters, I think I shouldn't have joined the debate.
Sorry for that.
(To that my late father would have had to ad:"I've told to speak only when children do...")
Bye,
Millie
:confused:

[RickJ]

Yes, the question was about a specific Christian issue, but in this case I do believe it is beyond that... which is why I pointed out that link, which, includes

"The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images [as we all do], for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by Him [God]who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

(italics and brackets are mine).

Millie, stick around as long as you like! [insert good smilie that says Have an Awesome Day!]

[milliec]

[ [insert good smilie that says Have an Awesome Day!][/QUOTE]
Thank you for your good wishes, and I too wish you
A Great Day
Millie
(who still stcks to :) )

[fredg]

HI, Starman,
I am a Christian. Sincerity does count.
I disagree with the concept that if one isn't sincere or acts on unknown information, going against God, then one will be lead to ultimate destruction at the hands of God.
One could be, if repentance is not made through prayer, and seek salvation from God.
"God's will be done" is always first. If one strays from it, not knowing, then one has the chance to repent and be saved.

[poppa0777]

I have often heard some Christians say that sincerity doesn't count if it is based on innacurate knowledge and that such ignorance can lead to ultimate destruction at the hands of God. I disagree with this concept. Do you?

They cite the following scripture to support their conclusion.

Romans 10

2For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

3For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. KJV

I do not believe sincerity or the lack thereof necessarily mean anything. As an example, the sincerity of those responsible for 3000+ lives on 9/11 can not be questioned. They were not only sincere, but sincerely wrong. That's what Paul was talking about in his letter to the Romans you referenced here. Remember that Paul himself had been guilty of this before his conversion to Christ on the Damascus road. At that time, he was on another deadly mission against Christians... believing in his heart that he was doing a great service to God! He too was sincere, but sincerely wrong.
Heresy rides into the church on the back of half truths. People who have the best of intentions have ruined so many people's lives in church because they have been ill-informed, ignorant of the Scriptures, and having their own personal agendas, etc.
I have been a serious student of the Bible for over 30 years, and am amazed at how often I have has strong feelings on particular doctrines; only to learn through more study, prayer, and Enlightenment from the Holy Ghost that I myself had been wrong.
Based on my experiences, I would have to disagree with you.

[Starman]

I do not believe sincerity or the lack thereof necessarily mean anything. As an example, the sincerity of those responsible for 3000+ lives on 9/11 can not be questioned. They were not only sincere, but sincerely wrong. That's what Paul was talking about in his letter to the Romans you referenced here. Remember that Paul himself had been guilty of this before his conversion to Christ on the Damascus road. At that time, he was on another deadly mission against Christians...believing in his heart that he was doing a great service to God! he too was sincere, but sincerely wrong.
Heresy rides into the church on the back of half truths. People who have the best of intentions have ruined so many people's lives in church because they have been ill-informed, ignorant of the Scriptures, and having their own personal agendas, etc.
I have been a serious student of the Bible for over 30 years, and am amazed at how often I have has strong feelings on particular doctrines; only to learn through more study, prayer, and Enlightenment from the Holy Ghost that I myself had been wrong.
Based on my experiences, I would have to disagree with you.

I agree with you about sincerity. I always remember Jesus words of "Forgive them for they know not what they are doing!" whenever someone condemns what he considers to be an ignorant person to eternal damnation based on that person's ignorance. Neither do I find it Christian to assume that we know what a person's eternal fate is based on his present situation. Situations change as do people as shown by the example you just provided of Paul.