> Actually, the Apostle Paul said that those who don't
> know Jesus but still
> lead their lives after his teachings would be
> allowed into his kingdom.
> Seems to me a good reason to walk around with your
> ears covered and yell "I
> can't hear you!!!" to all the missionaries that come
> to your island. That
> way, you can be a nice guy and go to heaven, without
> having to deal with all
> the meatless Fridays and rosaries and tithing and
> 3-bean casserole dinners.

Paul isn't quite so clear on this subject as that...
forgive me a little ad hoc Bible study...

ROMANS 10:9-15 NIV
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"


If Paul really believed as you describe, I imagine he
would have sat around in Jerusalem or Antioch and
broken bread for the rest of his life. Instead he went
on four long missionary journeys and endured
shipwrecks, beatings, stonings, starvation,
imprisonment, and finally execution for his preaching
and his refusal to worship Caesar or any Roman god.

The very word "apostle" is a transliteration from the
Greek which means "messenger" or "one who is sent."

Sorry, I guess I have my Baptist Fun Shield on this
afternoon :)

> 1) Hindus exist, and there are a lot more of them
> than there are Southern
> Baptists.
> 2) Hindus seem to have no problem with Southern
> Baptists, but Southern
> Baptists seem have a problem with Hindus.
> 3) By putting themselves in a position of being able
> to pray for those poor
> souls locked in "spiritual bondage," Southern
> Baptists assume a position of
> moral authority, a position that history does not
> provide them.
> 4) In this instance, Southern Baptists have shown
> themselves to be
> intolerant of Hindus. I, categorically, reject
> intolerance. Were the shoe
> on the other foot, I would be railing against
> Hindus, because it isn't
> religion or faith that I object to, it is
> intolerance.
>
> That is it. I did not ever even come close to
> saying that "SBC needs to be
> saved from its religion because it's stupid. " How
> one can read either of
> my two posts and come away with that is beyond me.
> To extract that from my
> posts is intellectually unfair. Rather, both of my
> posts were meant to take
> on intolerance, not faith or doctrine or the
> relative quality thereof. If
> you want to believe that that I am saying that
> Southern Baptists are stupid
> that's fine, but it ain't what I am saying. What I
> am saying is that Hindus
> appear willing to let Baptists live with their
> beliefs without having to
> convert them into Hindus, but Baptists appear
> unwilling to let Hindus just
> simply live. Now, reading what I actually wrote and
> not extrapolating what
> you think I meant into that, which of my statements
> do you have problems
> with?

Jesus made exclusive claims about himself that you
either have to believe (and be a Christian) or reject
(and be something else). Jesus himself disallowed the
concept of Dual Religious Citizenship. "I and the
Father are one." "No one comes to the Father but
through me." "Before Abraham was, I am." "I am the
resurrection and the life." "No one can serve two
masters." Hindus (and others) reject the exclusive
claims Jesus made about himself. The SBC didn't sit
down and dream those claims up on their own. That was
the point of William Carey's life: the vast majority
of Protestant ministers in the UK of the 1790's
believed it was a complete waste of time to "convert
the heathen." But Carey couldn't ignore those three
verses I quoted earlier and he based his whole life
around them.

Would a man who was motivated by intolerance and
"unmitigated gall" walk away from the most prosperous
nation on earth at the time to sail to the most
impoverished nation on earth and live as those people
lived and work endless days and nights to improve
their lives? In fact I'd venture to say he was the few
men in that era, Christian or otherwise, most tolerant
of Indians and Hindus, because he chose to live and
work among them. Is it not possible to earnestly love
and seek the best for a person or a nation, while
simultaneously hoping to convince them to change their
beliefs? Especially when that's exactly what Jesus
told Christians to do?

End of rant. Work to do. Thanks for listening.

> Despite the fact that, in terms of contemplating the
> universe and man's role
> in it, Hinduism is twice as old as Christianity,
> 15.8 million Southern
> Baptists are determined to "free" 900 million Hindus
> from their "spiritual
> bondage." Sheesh! Oh, but I forgot, the Southern
> Baptists have a monopoly
> on spiritual truth. Silly me!
>
>
http://news.excite.com/news/r/991022/14/news-religion-hindus

This determination is the logical outgrowth of a
belief in three divine statements. The God of Israel
said, "You shall have no other gods before Me." Jesus
said, "No one comes to the Father but through me," and
"Go and make disciples of all nations."

William Carey served as the first Baptist missionary
in India (impoverished, sick with malaria, caring for
an invalid wife) in the early 1800's. He wrote the
first dictionaries and serious grammatical studies for
four Indian languages (including Sanskrit) and led the
successful fight against the Indian practice of sati,
widows throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of
their dead husbands. He founded 100 rural schools that
focused on the education of girls, and the first
newspaper in India. I think that rather than
demonstrating spiritual hubris, he created a model for
Christians to improve the lives of the people who
disagree with their theology, while not compromising
the clear tenets of his faith.

"I was privileged to retrace the steps of Carey in
India recently to do location scouting for a film on
his life. I was amazed to find Carey's name still held
in the highest esteem in India. At the Serampore train
station there were statues of Ghandi and Carey.
Children told me that they learned about Carey in
school. Government officials spoke of his contribution
to India with the highest respect. While the U.S
Postal service was making a big fuss over issuance of
their stamp honoring Elvis Presley, the Indian
Department of Posts celebrated the life and ministry
of William Carey with the 6 rupee stamps."
(http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/glimpses/fortyfive.html)

The fundamentalist missionaries I know that devote
their lives to the spreading of Christianity, while
probably falling short of Carey's example of fanatical
servanthood, do seek to follow it. They're not
interested in becoming the number-one-rated
televangelist in Albania or whatever.