Alright, *ahem* stretched,
you are correct, what I believe wouldn't be considered "mainstream" Chrsitianity. However, the "mainstream" Christianity is also "modern Christianity." What I profess is Catholocism, which is the Church that follows the lineage of Popes right back to Saint Peter, the Apostle, to whom was said by Christ, "You are Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church.
The following statement:
"Those who refuse salvation through God's son Jesus have automatically chosen eternal separation from God with conscious torment in Hell."
which you quoted, is true GIVEN THAT, a.) you believe Jesus to be God's son, b.) you understand the choice that you're making, c.) you fully choose to reject the salvation wrought by Jesus. This means that if you are unconvinced (for whatever reason) of Christ's divinity, His salvific act, or the need for salvation, then you cannot be held fully responsible for severing yourself from that act. Therefore, you may still receive redemption. It also means that if you are forced to choose against Christ (for whatever reason, and by whatever means) then you, again, cannot be held fully responsible for severing youself from that act. Therefore, you may still receive redemption. It ALSO means that if you have never even heard of Jesus (for whatever reason), and therefore aren't capable of making the conscious choice of accepting Jesus' salvific act (as such), then you cannot be fully held responsible for not accepting it (you may, in fact, be actively living in unison with it, though unaware that you are). Therefore, you may still receive redemption.
In response to your question about #4, I have answered this already (perhaps not in this thread, I'm not sure) in saying that the deaths, either commanded by God, or wrought by God Himself, as spoken by Old Testament authors, cannot be seen as true, as such. What is written in the Old Testament was written for a great many reasons, the least of which was to show that God acted out violently against humans. In fact, what is considered in the Old Testament to be violent acts of God against mankind, or men, is almost always so by very indirect means, none of which could be considered willed activities of God. I reiterate that many of the stories illustrate a human way of justifying bad actions by using God as a front (kinda like what Bush is doing, as well as the terrorists who also use God as a front). Also, many of those stories were simply written from the perspective of humans trying to understand catastrophes (like the flood), and often drew the correlation between wickedness and punishment, and so concluded that it was an action of God (much like many old pagan religions who would perform human sacrifices to the "gods" in order to appease their anger). The enlightened Christian would recognize this and admit that such things could not possible have been done by God, He being, as is asserted, omnibenevolent.
************************************
Now, in response to Chazman,
thank you for correcting my misconceived assumptions. However, don't consider my perception shallow, for there are MANY Christians to whom my reasoning can be applied. I simply recognized some patternal forms of language that you have used that indicate a person of such belief and reasoning.
However, you have also made the same mistake that I did, and have assumed many incorrect notions about me and my own beliefs.
In fact, I belief first, and then attempt to understand. I apply my logic to my beliefs, and have always found that my beliefs, and my logic can be reconciled. If God really is the creator of all, and the image of God is Intellect and Free Will, then we were meant to use our intellect, and so I do.
I do, also, believe in the entire truth of the Bible. However, in a different sense, than, perhaps (again, I assume) you. I realize that what truth the Bible is intended to reveal, is entirely true. However, I also recognize that there is much in the Bible that does not coincide with other kinds of truths (ie, scientific truths, historical/archaeological truths, etc...). The Bible was not written to present such truths, and so I do not consider areas that have apparent flaws, or contradictions with regard to known present day truths to be of major concern, since those kinds of truths were not meant to be absolute in the Bible, they aren't the reason the Bible was written.
Furthermore, I would like just to say this last thing. There is a different between saying "why did God do such a horrible thing?" and "why did God allow such a horrible thing to happen." It is quite easy to reconcile the second question with the postulation that God is an omnibenevolent being. However, I doubt the first could ever be reconciled with the notion.
