Theists, how do you respond to the 'Eskimo Problem?'

I often in conversations of a theological bent bring up the Sentinelese and other as-yet Uncontacted Tribal Peoples who are totally oblivious to the spiritual demands of any of the major faiths, Abrahamic or otherwise.

For these people, sudden cultural contact would probably mean death by disease. We have tons of diseases we've become immune to that were initially brought about by agriculture and industrialism. These diseases would kill the uncontacted peoples faster than the process of indoctrination could take hold.

Bringing this up, I end up in a debate resembling pic related, but the answers are never satisfying, being usually of a Determinist, Calvinist bent (only The Elect go to Heaven) or of a racist bent (They aren't really human so salvation doesn't matter for them.).

Do you guys have more sophisticated answers. I know people on Veeky Forums Veeky Forums are expert theologians. Let's see what you can cook up.

The person that doesn't know Christ (never heard of him) would go to Limbo, because he was ignorant of Christ word. Because he's ignorant of it, he wouldn't know what sin is, if someone told him about it, I think it would be mighty damn good time to convert. All you have to do is be a good person if you're ignorant or a dead infant to make it to limbo.

*tips fedora*

What of the ones who are contacted by Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. first, but never get the Skinny on Yeshua?

Hell

Literally all the evidence is clear that Jesus was the son of God and anyone who does not believe will suffer in hell for eternity

Not wanting to know and not spreading his words are acts of sin, perhaps? I don't know, but that's possible reasoning that could be used pretty easily, even out your ass.

The Mormons were pretty good about the whole heaven/hell thing, dropping that was a good idea for making their religion popular. Pretty much all they have to do is stop hating gays and then clean up a bit of the racism in the corners and they'll be good for at least a couple more centuries. But yeah, heaven and hell concepts are very easy points of logical attack with christianity, so obvious that children point out the lack of logic when asking questions to their parents about this kind of stuff, it's just better to do away with the concept altogether. Shit's gotta change with the times to survive, I mean look at the new diet vanilla pope.

Then it's Hell.

Also, can I get a source for The Church saying this at any point before 1492?

(not that the church necessarily reflects what Christ or God think, but it would be good to know whether this is actually the church's answer.)

how is that fair?

>inb4 god isn't fair

> Literally all the evidence is clear
Literally all the evidence is clear that statements that start with "Literally all the evidence is clear " are conjecture.

...

Damn, hornswoggled myself again!

>Also, can I get a source for The Church saying this at any point before 1492?
user, you know the Church likes doing flippy shit to fit the need of the situation, it's flexible.
If he's not ignorant of the outside world, then he should know sin. If he's ignorant of the outside world, ignorant of sin, then he goes to limbo.

>I know people on Veeky Forums Veeky Forums are expert theologians.
>People on Veeky Forums
>Experts in anything but shitposting and arguing

Clearly my tongue was impaling my cheek and wiggling around outside the hole when I said that.

So which is it that determines salvation?

Knowledge of Christ or knowledge of sin?

Moreover, what is limbo exactly? Nothingness? Reincarnation into new life forms until you accept Christ? Why does this still sound like a deterministic "Only The Elect" argument?

If something as arbitrary as location can determine salvation, then isn't that a flaw in the means by which humans are supposed to receive God's knowledge?

>Knowledge of Christ or knowledge of sin?
If he knows Christ he should know sin.
>Moreover, what is limbo exactly?
Basically Heaven-lite, the closet a person ignorant of God or a dead infant who wasn't baptized can go to but isn't with God per-say.
>If something as arbitrary as location can determine salvation
I literally just told you, know Christ, know sin. If you don't know Christ, and is ignorant based on where you are located, then they shouldn't be punished, granted they should be a good person, but still.

Hold on, just because the wrong messenger got to them first?

Wouldn't Muslims/Jews say the same thing?

How can an intelligence utterly unacquainted with these cultures be expected to make an informed choice?

>Hold on, just because the wrong messenger got to them first?
If they got contact from the outside world, I'm expecting them to see Christ.

I had a feeling it was tongue and cheek, but sometimes on this site you never fucking know.

On topic though, I would just leave them alone. Let them be happy with whatever makes them happy, so long as they're not a bunch of degenerates (like human sacrifice, pedophilia, and other things that are frowned upon in society). If they're degenerates, then they deserve the same fate as the Aztecs and Mayans.

What incentive would a non-Christian civilization contacting tribal peoples have in bringing them Christ mythology?

>What incentive would a non-Christian civilization contacting tribal peoples have in bringing them Christ mythology?
I don't know, do I look like a missionary to you?

Why couldn't God just avoid all the drama and forgive people on a case by case basis?

I mean I love my kids and will punish them if need be, but torturing them for eternity seems a bit extreme. And if one ran away from home to be rid of me I'd take them back if they're honestly sorry. That's just good parenting.

It's not as effective at controlling people if it were like that though.

Because the doctrines of heaven and hell are just there to safeguard and ensure faith.

They are less direct communications from God and more desparate human-herding ideological tricks by those who would indoctrinate and spread dogma for this-or-that faith..

>Why couldn't God just avoid all the drama and forgive people on a case by case basis?
Because that negates following God.

And why does God want or need to be followed?

Surely his existence is independent of our belief, and our moral decisions are independent of our belief.

As an analogy, if I made a movie I wouldn't care whether the audience knew who directed it, I would just care whether they bought a ticket and paid attention to what the story was about.

>And why does God want or need to be followed?
So you can be fucking saved you idiot.
>I would just care whether they bought a ticket and paid attention to what the story was about.
Then it's a shit analogy.

No. I was asking because you implied () that as soon as an uncontacted tribe receives contact, BAM. CHRIST.

Which my question framed a situation where that wouldn't necessarily be the case.

I actually know a missionary. She doesn't think very hard about these things.

>that as soon as an uncontacted tribe receives contact, BAM. CHRIST.
Well sense it's documented, the Church should send a missionary to convert the people.
>She doesn't think very hard about these things.
>She

Why is following him his criteria for being saved?

Limbo is officially rejected by Catholicism now.
It was no part of Orthodoxy or Protestantism.

The simple fact is by Christians own logic if the religion never spread itself and died out everyone would go to heaven.

Not sure if you're implying that "women r dum" or that missionaries can't be women.

If it's the second case I mean specifically woman, not an ordained priest, who goes on Christian missions in third world countries providing food and bibles and stuff to peeps.

She doesn't look too hard into the ideological end of things. She's all about good works.

I don't need anyone to follow me

If you love someone you want to ensure they're happy and safe, not dominate them or make them kiss your feet

God thinks like a person, right? Wouldn't he prefer to have friends and family rather than groveling servants?

>The simple fact is by Christians own logic if the religion never spread itself and died out everyone would go to heaven.


Woah, maaaaan.

Why doesn't God just say "apology accepted" and be done? He knows if you're lying

The doctrine of "anonymous Christian" is a Vatican II thing, it doesn't exist in Orthodoxy. We don't know whether or not the Eskimo will go to hell if he doesn't know. We don't know whether or not he would go to hell if he does know.

>Limbo is officially rejected by Catholicism now.
It isn't rejected nor accepted user. Also it for infants.
Because you don't know.
We aren't talking to you, he wanted an answer, and I gave him one, Orthodoxy doesn't give answers, so why should you even comment on it?

u dont understaaaaaaaaaaand bro

but its okay because we do

(insert appeal to cultural authority)

Don't know what?

I like this because it's honest and doesn't claim knowledge only God could have.

I dig it

>he wanted an answer

"I don't know" is an answer. It's also a very honest one, and it's where the pursuit of knowledge begins.

>Orthodoxy doesn't give answers
Correct, unless Christ himself passed on something directly to the Apostles, the Church cannot espouse it as theology.

That even though God exists, your beliefs are not a sin, unless those beliefs are pagan. By pagan, I mean, believing your actions in life can anger or please gods/nature. A rain dance won't make it rain, and letting people believe in such things is detrimental to society as a whole.

>If you love someone you want to ensure they're happy and safe
Think of it like a parent, if your good, you get thing, if you aren't you don't. If you blow him off, you get written off of there will and would be look down upon
I don't know isn't an answer, it doesn't bring any closure.

Think about it like this

God is the president

You're the average citizen

If you bump into him and smear ice cream on his suit you deserve to go to prison no matter how "sorry" you are as you're dragged away

If you bump into the average guy and smear ice cream on his shirt it's nowhere near as big of a deal

>Correct, unless Christ himself passed on something directly to the Apostles, the Church cannot espouse it as theology.
Thank God for Apostolic Succession huh :^)

U wot m8?

That's downright evil

>That's downright evil
Evil is a spook.

Apostolic succession is strictly concerned with preserving Christ's teachings, not with adding to them.

>Wouldn't Muslims/Jews say the same thing?

Muslims are all over the place, until the fall of the Ottoman empire basically, when Saudi influence began to take control. But even now, among the intellectuals even in places like Saudi Arabia, this is being debated. This has also been debated throughout all Muslim history.

But personally, I think Islamically, as long as you continue to search for the truth, it's not a sin. Even if you go your whole life not believing in God, as long as you are open to the concept and search to the best of your ability, with an open mind, it's a non-issue.

Your destiny in the afterlife is more about your actions in life, not your beliefs.

>Apostolic succession is strictly concerned with preserving Christ's teachings, not with adding to them.
In the Orthodox Church, yes. We aren't talking about the Orthodox Church. We aren't talking about the Church that confides itself with mostly slavs.

>If you bump into him and smear ice cream on his suit you deserve to go to prison no matter how "sorry" you are as you're dragged away

Sounds awfully petty and human for an entity with boundless love, wisdom, and empathy, who knew about my gaffe an infinite amount of time before it happened.

"Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".

It's also the dominant Christianity of Greece and the Middle East, and the Antiochian Church in the West is mostly not Arab

>It's also the dominant Christianity of Greece and the Middle East, and the Antiochian Church in the West is mostly not Arab
And that's it.

So...might makes right?

If someone is of higher power or status then you it's okay to be punished more severely?

If you made a clone from human DNA it'd be okay to torture it forever because it's your "creation"?

An answer doesn't have to bring closure.

An answer is merely you telling me what you think.

None of the other answers in the thread brought closure either. "I don't know" opens up zero new questions.

The other answers opened up plenty of new questions, and so actually moved away from closure rather than just remaining stationary.

>The other answers opened up plenty of new questions, and so actually moved away from closure rather than just remaining stationary.
Would you rather be stagnate or would you rather be restless and learn?

God is all wise, benevolent, loving, compassionate, and merciful

That's why he rids the world of sinners by letting them into the eternal darkness, misery, and flame of hell

If you told a neighbor to come to your house to avoid a ravenous pack of wolves and they said no "lol what are wolves doing in suburbia?" why would you even open it back up no matter how hard they begged you?

Of course the latter, I'm just saying it's good to hear a religious person say "I don't know" instead of engaging in these acrobatic apologetics where appeals to dubious and varied authorities are constantly used.

That has to do with absolution and excommunication, not with adding to the knowledge imparted by Christ.

And we didn't convert by the sword.

Breaks my heart to hear this:

>That's why he rids the world of sinners by letting them into the eternal darkness, misery, and flame of hell

These are people, we're talking about, not weeds in a Garden.

God created these people himself.

Pic related, it's my difficulty with faith. I try to get closer through understanding, but it seems to move further with every "answer" I get.

Those who die without baptism or knowledge of God go to Limbo, it is far better than Hell and far worse than Heaven.

According to the book of Revelation an army of repentant sinners and non-believers will accept Jesus (while still alive) and go to heaven after the final battle & theme music power up

Why can they get to see blatant proof of the supernatural and be saved yet nobody else can?

I meant without baptism if they're babies.

Sounds like Samsara

Consider the Orthodox understanding of hell, it's a lot different

If he didn't get told about christianity, he would have witnessed it.

>acrobatic apologetics where appeals to dubious and varied authorities are constantly used.
But that's how you learn. I don't know cuts it short.
Hell is only just the absent of God. Take that what you will because that's all I have to say about it.
And that's why Byzantium fell. Wow, maybe using the sword to spread Christ word is really efficient, who'd a thunk?

>And that's why Byzantium fell. Wow, maybe using the sword to spread Christ word is really efficient, who'd a thunk?
Nah, Christianity is not Islam.

Sinners are worth less than bacteria

And sinners who refuse the love of God deserve the sensation of utter hopelessness, fear, and anguish in every way imaginable

God is the ultimate dispatcher of justice

I don't blame you for putting them I suppose, but the animals made their choice

>Nah, Christianity is not Islam.
>Nah, lets not remove the Turks, but instead, lets please them while we attack the Crusaders from Rome trying to retake the Holy Land

Well you guys were occupying us, what do you expect?

You to join with us and remove Islam? Not that fucking hard man, come on.

>Hell is only just the absent of God. Take that what you will because that's all I have to say about it.

In that case I'm fine?
I've had a personal understanding of God for a while now. It's Pantheistic and not christian however, though I think of Christ as a sort of personification of the virtues of selflessness and sacrifice.

Everyone in this thread is a little piece of God, to me, as is everyone I've ever met.

According to this understanding I still don't *need* dogma or belief in an anthropomorphic, punishing deity.

>us

> sinners who refuse the love of God deserve
> deserve
Sounds like you're the one deciding this.

>In that case I'm fine?
No.
>According to this understanding I still don't *need* dogma or belief in an anthropomorphic, punishing deity.
I would rather have you convert and be a Christian (Catholic would be preferable)

Imagine if Protestants occupied the Vatican and forced Protestants services and administration, and then call you traitors when you fight back, because they said you should be cooperating to fight Islam.

Are they part of the 144K?

>Imagine if Protestants occupied the Vatican and forced Protestants services and administration, and then call you traitors when you fight back, because they said you should be cooperating to fight Islam.
That's not applicable because we aren't talking about the Vatican (which isn't near the fucking holy land), we're talking about the fact that the Orthodox could of gave logistics and help out in removing the heretics. Why do you feel so keen on supporting Islam?

What is meant here? Direct visions of Jesus?

How come there aren't accounts of natives having visions of Jesus and spreading Christianity throughout the new world before the arrival of the Spanish? I mean, we're talking ~1500 years of no direct knowledge of Christian culture.

So you're not a sinner, are you? You're perfect, aren't you?

Thanks user.
Sounds like things my grandma told me when I was young (she's not religious).

She always said "The only hell is the hell you make for yourself."

>She always said "The only hell is the hell you make for yourself."
Hell is only being away from God desu.

Can't, goes against our Church. The Catholic Church had her own standing army and granted indulgences for war, but the Orthodox Church never had her own army and we certainly couldn't give indulges for fighting in a war, since it's our policy that penance actually had to be done by soldiers returning from war for all the blood they've shed.

> I would rather have you convert and be a Christian (Catholic would be preferable)

Well that's certain, but the important question is why does God care?

But then to an extent I suppose you are an incarnation of the eternal will.

But so are the people opposed to your ideas.

The Eskimos had their own religion, so it doesn't matter. Just leave them alone. Same for all others that haven't been converted yet. Just leave these people be.

It says in that article that the Orthodox conception of hell involves no created place of divine absence nor is it ontological separation of God, but here you are saying it is, so I guess I'm confused again.

I agree.
I'm not trying to convert anybody.
I'm grappling with the logical edges of the theology I have been introduced to through culture I was born in and (partly) inherited, by asking questions about people who weren't.

>Can't, goes against our Church
But having an emperor isn't? Oh for fuck sake just give logistics and think of it like a political war, not Religious.
>but the important question is why does God care?
Because it's the right Church, it's the true Church, don't listen to tripfags like Constantine, he can't even tell me her real gender.

No problem.

Not in Orthodox Christianity. It's being acutely conscious of God's grace, except the grace is like a fire because of enmity with God.

>But having an emperor isn't?
Romans 13

He user who responded isn't Orthodox

We aren't talking about Orthohell, I'm talking about Catholic hell.

That doesn't justify having a goddamn secular ruler being in charge of picking and choosing who can be the goddamn patriarch.
The affairs of the Church and the affairs of the state must be separate enough where the Church and pick it's own leaders.

>If God is all powerful, he can not be all good. And of he is all good, he can not be all powerful
What's the response to the problem of evil?

>What's the response to the problem of evil?
You gotta give Satan something to do.

For real?

Relligions is not just about not going to hell, its instructions from god of how to make your life better, that's why I've told you

This problem has been asked so many times that there's a specific name for a solution.

They're called Theodocy.

The Patriarch in any given country is like the ambassador, that's mainly what distinguishes him from a regular bishop, he's the go-between so it makes sense that the emperor can pick him. You had plenty of Popes installed by secular rulers, and the Patriarch has a lot less power than the Pope, the Patriarch is just special bishop.