The logical implications of rejecting God

[1Dude]

Hi Josh,

I hope your week is going well. Mine has been pretty busy. I have three awesome sons who I try to help with homework almost every night. Tonight one of them was in a concert. He did great!

About finding evidence of a religion's truth -- what would you say is most important to you: logical proof, scientific documentation of Biblical stories, consistent dogma, maybe a--for lack of a better word--"spiritual" kind of truth? Or something else?

c) All of the above. It all "should" work together in some logical way. But I do not have all the answers. Maybe with your help I can find a few more.

I was given a copy of John McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but it failed to convince me of much, mostly because I saw holes in the reasoning (eg. the fallacies behind the Three-L Defense). So I guess I'm curious what really drives the conclusion so many reach to follow Christianity. Is it really proof or "evidence" of something? To me, it seems like you navigated your way out of agnosticism because you needed something definable to worship (a "foundation," in your words), so is evidence really necessary?

You are quite right about me. I did have and still do have a need for a "foundation" to build my life on. As you know the quest for "truth" is kinda like a maze in a minefield. Everything you read has assumptions and biases built right into it, so much so, that it becomes very difficult to navigate successfully through it to find any "truth". On top of that each of us has our own life experience, assumptions and biases that affect how we interpret what we read. All I can do is the best I can do. And finally, yes, evidence is necessary for me to determine which foundation to build my life on.

And one other question I always have ... If it came to pass that your conclusions about God, Jesus, or the afterlife were wrong, would you then look back and feel your decision had been premature? Or is having a faith right now--whatever that faith may be--worth the bet, if only to provide some foundation for living?

Well, I am not sure what would happen. I try to consider other views and I am willing to reject bad Christian reasoning when I find it. There is plenty of that in existence. Perhaps you could help me discover more. If so, great! My faith is a little more than a "bet" to me.

You'll have to excuse all the questions... it seems I rarely encounter a religious conversation that isn't filled with evangelical calls to action, outright arrogance, or instant name-calling.

I know what you mean! The same thing happens to me!

 

[JustARide]

You are quite right about me. I did have and still do have a need for a "foundation" to build my life on. As you know the quest for "truth" is kinda like a maze in a minefield. Everything you read has assumptions and biases built right into it, so much so, that it becomes very difficult to navigate successfully through it to find any "truth". On top of that each of us has our own life experience, assumptions and biases that affect how we interpret what we read. All I can do is the best I can do. And finally, yes, evidence is necessary for me to determine which foundation to build my life on.

Very true. I must admit a part of me thinks that actually discovering something consistent and "true" (beyond the layers of bias) is impossible. I guess that's one reason the Bible stopped making sense for me. It's clearly a product of its time and, living in an age where many behaviors sanctioned in the Bible (by God even) are now considered wholly immoral, I can't consider the "Holy" book anything more than a collection of interesting but decidedly un-special stories. I wonder how you, with similar misgivings about bias, came to regard the Bible as truth?

Well, I am not sure what would happen. I try to consider other views and I am willing to reject bad Christian reasoning when I find it. There is plenty of that in existence. Perhaps you could help me discover more. If so, great! My faith is a little more than a "bet" to me.

I realize most people of faith see their religious persuasion as more than a "bet," but one thing in particular bothers me. In the Christian faith, everyone has an afterlife in only one of two destinations. In the back of every Christian's mind, there must be at least a subconcious awareness of the dangers of Hell (which, by the way, does not include the possibility of parole). So, even if a Christian is "pure of heart," in the sense that he lives for God or the good, he still must grapple with (and be concerned about) his place in eternity. In this way, I think his faith has to be a bet. He is betting that his religion is correct and, believing in everlasting damnation, must also see this bet as having some effect on his future.

What I'm trying to say is: Christianity--for all its high-minded morals--is still a religion based on the self. Christians, on some level, must be doing what they're doing because they believe they will be rewarded with Heaven or punished with Hell. They will be rewarded or punished, not somebody or something else. The concern remains me, me, me.

But consider for a moment the well-meaning agnostic who has no requisite belief in Heaven or Hell. He might also do good, but not out of a hope for reward or fear of Hell. In this way, has he not actually transcended the Christian model which, at its core, still holds that self-interest is the best motivator? That may or may not be true (the self is the prime reason for doing anything), but again I ask: how can a religion that tells believers they will end up suffering or rejoicing forever based on their earthly actions say it is appealing to something more than selfishness?

I can't see that as anything but a bet--no matter how Christians dress it up.

Anyway...

..enough of that. Don't want to get off on a rant here.

All the best,

Josh

 

[1Dude]

Hi Josh:
Your comments are all excellent and deserve real responses but so far I only have time to respond to the first one.

Very true. I must admit a part of me thinks that actually discovering something consistent and "true" (beyond the layers of bias) is impossible. I guess that's one reason the Bible stopped making sense for me. It's clearly a product of its time and, living in an age where many behaviors sanctioned in the Bible (by God even) are now considered wholly immoral, I can't consider the "Holy" book anything more than a collection of interesting but decidedly un-special stories. I wonder how you, with similar misgivings about bias, came to regard the Bible as truth?

My dad was a Christian and there was a really neat miracle that occurred in his life that ended up being a launch point for me. It gave me enough evidence, anyway, to decide that God might be real. One night I just literally screamed out in anger at God and demanded that He prove Himself to me. I opened myself up to the possibility that the Bible was real and I asked Him to reveal Himself to me through it. Over time He actually did just that.

I will get back to you on your other very interesting comments as soon as I can.

 

[1Dude]

I realize most people of faith see their religious persuasion as more than a "bet," but one thing in particular bothers me. In the Christian faith, everyone has an afterlife in only one of two destinations. In the back of every Christian's mind, there must be at least a subconcious awareness of the dangers of Hell (which, by the way, does not include the possibility of parole). So, even if a Christian is "pure of heart," in the sense that he lives for God or the good, he still must grapple with (and be concerned about) his place in eternity. In this way, I think his faith has to be a bet. He is betting that his religion is correct and, believing in everlasting damnation, must also see this bet as having some effect on his future.

What I'm trying to say is: Christianity--for all its high-minded morals--is still a religion based on the self. Christians, on some level, must be doing what they're doing because they believe they will be rewarded with Heaven or punished with Hell. They will be rewarded or punished, not somebody or something else. The concern remains me, me, me.

I might be looking at this differently than you. If it were based on “good works” or a “pure heart” or my ability to live up to a perfect standard it would not be a “bet” at all but an impossibility. The chance of my failure would simply be 100%. Fortunately it is not dependent on me, or my works, but is a free gift.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace (or unmerited favor) you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

But consider for a moment the well-meaning agnostic who has no requisite belief in Heaven or Hell. He might also do good, but not out of a hope for reward or fear of Hell. In this way, has he not actually transcended the Christian model which, at its core, still holds that self-interest is the best motivator? That may or may not be true (the self is the prime reason for doing anything), but again I ask: how can a religion that tells believers they will end up suffering or rejoicing forever based on their earthly actions say it is appealing to something more than selfishness?

Is it possible, that such a person might tend to become puffed up in pride and arrogance from his many accomplishments? From his many good works? I think that the Bible agrees with your concerns. Some of what you are talking about is addressed in the Bible in 1st Corinthians 13:1-13. Do you agree with what is written there?

Thank you for your kind and appropriate discussion on this subject. I wish all Christians had your insight and perspective.

Best Wishes!

Ken

 

[§outh§tar]

Word of wisdom 1Dude

 

[Katazia]

1Dude,

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace (or unmerited favor) you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

You realize that this says that men are merely puppets of a god, and are incapable of good deeds on their own merit. That is clearly absurd. But so much for free will then.

But even if men are controlled by God their submission to him is still an act of self. They choose God entirely because they expect to be rewarded by an eternity in paradise. Whether Christianity or not all religious beliefs come down to the fantasy that adherents who follow the rules will survive death when they die. Christianity added a new encouragement by threatening its prospects with eternal torture if they didn’t tow the line.

The double whammy is a promise of cheating death and a threat of eternal pain if they didn’t conform – no wonder so many people have been conned. Both are of course pure fiction, unless of course you could show otherwise.

Kat

 

[Preacher_X]

can you see atoms or DNA? but you still believe it because a limited amount of people (scientists) tell you and they provide proof (pics, text etc.) well to religious people the scientists are the Prophets, the evidence is the miracels/prophicies etc. in the books and the signs of creation.

the answer is simple. there is either a God or not. the answer depends on the individual. science has proven that 15 Billion years ago the universe was created at a certain point and it will come to an end at a certain point from now. before that nothing exsisted including time and space. it would be immpossible to imagine what the universe was like before the Big Bang becasue "nothing" (and this really is "nothing") is unimaginable. when someone asks you to imagine nothing, in your head, you'll probably be thinking something like a blank white space with "nothing" there. well even this is wrong. first off white is something and the actual "space" that "nothing" covers is something! and before the big bang according to science and religion these things didn't exsist (it is immpossible for these to exsist). not even the space that nothing covers exsisted or the time that "nothing" exsisted for. if it is scientifically proven that something as bizaree as this is possible then why is the idea of God ridiculous to some people. also it is proven that the universe will enevitably come to an end, which is according to (some) religions going to be the doomsday.

CONCLUSION

the common arguement for atheism is that if God made the universe, then what made God, well if humans can't even imagine "nothing" then how on eartgh can we imagine what God can do.

 

[JustARide]

I might be looking at this differently than you. If it were based on “good works” or a “pure heart” or my ability to live up to a perfect standard it would not be a “bet” at all but an impossibility. The chance of my failure would simply be 100%. Fortunately it is not dependent on me, or my works, but is a free gift.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says: "For by grace (or unmerited favor) you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast."

I understand that Christians consider the possibility of heavenly rewards as a gift, bought by the blood of Jesus, but that does not mean God abdicates the right to judge. Heaven may be a gift not deserved by anyone; still, requirements for even having a chance at going to Heaven (or avoiding Hell) exist in the Bible. Clearly, nonbelievers will not be welcome, or at the very least, at a distinct disadvantage. Thus, no matter what Christians consider Heaven to be (gift, guaranteed reward, etc.), eternity hangs in the balance for those who believe and those who do not.

Buddhists, Hindus, and even Jews eschew the idea of Hell. The former two even allow for second and third chances, whether via reincarnation or through some kind of learning process. Christianity is different -- Heaven and Hell are forever and the dead cannot appeal. Thus, there is an added urgency and a sense of finality hanging over the faith -- one that surely occupies the minds of many Christians.

And even with its obvious flaws, Pascal's Wager remains applicable here. After all, there is simply more at stake in Christianity than most other religions... and therein is the "bet" to which I refer. If Christianity did not offer afterlife rewards and punishments, would it be as powerful or popular? I've met many believers who have adopted the faith simply to guard against the possibility of Hell. That kind of reasoning seems inescapable to me -- if one interprets judgment as final and based on one's belief.

Is it possible, that such a person might tend to become puffed up in pride and arrogance from his many accomplishments? From his many good works? I think that the Bible agrees with your concerns. Some of what you are talking about is addressed in the Bible in 1st Corinthians 13:1-13. Do you agree with what is written there?

Indeed, my hypothetical agnostic may become egotistical, but not necessarily. My problem is that Christianity -- with its eternal rewards and punishments -- cannot escape the claim that it (and by extension God himself) is merely appealing to people's sense of self-preservation. Hence, we have the televangelist outgrowth of that, where preachers engage in salesmanship sometimes saying outright, "Give us money and God will bless you financially." They appeal to capitalistic impulses to sell the religion, essentially reducing faith to kind of business deal undertaken for personal benefit/profit. I think this is largely the reason Christianity has flourished in more capitalistic states. It has a clear cause => effect structure. Believe and be rewarded. Disbelieve and be punished. Like capitalism, the emphasis is on personal interests and basing decisions on "How will this affect me?"

I cede that, just as my well-meaning agnostic may or may not cave to his baser instincts, so may the Christian. I do not doubt the good intentions of many Christians, but I can't help but wonder, if doing good without thought of reward is the highest good, why God feels the need to guilt trip, frighten, or entice nonbelievers by dangling the carrot of eternal reward/punishment in front of them. Surely, divine judgment is not merely a more grand -- and ultimately unfair -- version of our earthly justice system. As my idol Bill Hicks said, "Believe or die. That's the message we're left with. Eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. Oh, thank you for giving, Lord! For all those options!"

As for 1 Corinthians, I generally agree with the notions of charity espoused there. But I see it as contradictory. On one hand, the Bible praises charity for charity's sake, but on the other it encourages believers by reassuring them they are "storing up treasures in Heaven." What if God had said, "Do good in my name and that shall be thy reward" and then made no mention of Heaven or Hell?

The system of eternal comeuppance has always struck me as a marketing tool more than anything else. Death is the great unknown and, sadly, there is no more effective method of evangelism than frightening nonbelievers into believing.

As Einstein said, "Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Thank you for your kind and appropriate discussion on this subject. I wish all Christians had your insight and perspective.

Likewise, I wish all agnostics were as slow to judge as yourself.

Want to start a pool on when this thread will be invaded by angry polemicists? I give it two more days. Heh.

Josh

 

[JustARide]

Want to start a pool on when this thread will be invaded by angry polemicists? I give it two more days. Heh.

Wait. Scratch that. They may already be here.

Josh

 

[Katazia]

Preacher X,

can you see atoms or DNA? but you still believe it because a limited amount of people (scientists) tell you and they provide proof (pics, text etc.)

Not quite. We can detect and measure these entities through extensions of our sight via scientific instruments. Scientists do not tell us what they have found they show us how to find them through careful experiments, which are available for anyone to construct. Such information does not become widespread and accepted until many independent researchers can produce the same results. Even then the results are usually considered tentative for a very long time.

well to religious people the scientists are the Prophets, the evidence is the miracels/prophicies etc. in the books and the signs of creation.

Unfortunately your analogy doesn’t work since the prophets do not reveal how that know what they claim and hence their claims cannot be independently verified by anyone else. All we are left with are unsupported and unverifiable baseless claims. But you are correct that religion is indeed based on unsupported and unverifiable baseless claims. Now if you can re-produce a miracle under careful scientific conditions which can be reproduced by anyone else with the appropriate equipment then you might have a case.

the answer is simple. there is either a God or not.

Well not quite. This depends on how you define God. The Christian and Islamic type gods are quite absurd as Einstein indicated and certainly do not exist, but could there be some other form of super intelligence that plays some part in the universe? That is simply unknown.

the answer depends on the individual.

So something exists depending on whether I believe it or not? You must be joking right?

science has proven that 15 Billion years ago the universe was created at a certain point

No it hasn’t. Science has presented a theory that an explosive event appears to have occurred at around 15 Billion years ago resulting in most of the matter and energy that we can currently observe given the current limitations of our instruments. It is unknown what caused the apparent explosion or what came before this event. It is also unknown if this is a cyclic event or just one of a concurrent infinite number of similar events.

and it will come to an end at a certain point from now.

That is unknown and current theories (2003) suggest that the currently observable part of our universe will collapse into a big crunch, and probably begin the cycle again.

before that nothing exsisted including time and space.

A baseless assertion.

it would be immpossible to imagine what the universe was like before the Big Bang becasue "nothing" (and this really is "nothing") is unimaginable.

Nonsense – go and read some popular science fiction, those books abound with imaginative concepts of multiple and parallel universes and even more bizarre ideas. And imagining nothing is not so difficult – try studying some astrophysics where these concepts are regularly discussed.

when someone asks you to imagine nothing, in your head, you'll probably be thinking something like a blank white space with "nothing" there. well even this is wrong. first off white is something and the actual "space" that "nothing" covers is something!

I think you are describing the limitations of your own limited imagination. It is not a problem for many others.

and before the big bang according to science and religion these things didn't exsist (it is immpossible for these to exsist). not even the space that nothing covers exsisted or the time that "nothing" exsisted for.

You are just laboring the point now and not adding anything useful.

if it is scientifically proven that something as bizaree as this is possible then why is the idea of God ridiculous to some people.

Firstly no such things have been scientifically proven – at best all you have is speculation. But the idea of God existing is quite a different matter since it relies on the concept of supernaturalism and for that there is absolutely zero evidence.

also it is proven that the universe will enevitably come to an end,

No it hasn’t. Show the proof if you believe there is one.

which is according to (some) religions going to be the doomsday.

But then religions love catastrophes and have been predicting them for many millennia, this is how they gain many new recruits. Around 2000 years ago the Jewish date was the year 3760, this had been triggering beliefs that the world was going to end in the year 4000 and that had further triggered the rise of the many pretenders to the title of messiah and savior. The Jesus myths were generated out of that quagmire.

the common arguement for atheism is that if God made the universe, then what made God, well if humans can't even imagine "nothing" then how on eartgh can we imagine what God can do.

It would seem only you are unable to imagine “nothing”.

But the argument you quote is out of context. The argument is based on the Christian claim that everything must have been created, and then they proceed to make an exception for God. The atheist counters with if everything must be created then who created God, and the creator of God and the creator of the creator, etc. etc, ad infinitum.

What we observe in reality is that nothing is ever created but everything evolves. Even in physics we have learnt that matter and energy can be exchanged but neither is ever destroyed or created. We have no reason to believe that these basic rules are not universal.

Kat

 

[1Dude]

Hi Josh,

Hope your week is going well!

I need to find out if I am understanding you or misunderstanding you when you talk about selfishness.

Webster’s Dictionary
Definition:\Self"ish*ness\, n.
The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to
one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or
self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes
to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness,
without regarding those of others.

If you are saying that this kind of selfishness is wrong then I completely agree with you. You need to know that you are also agreeing with Jesus for He taught that this was wrong as well. If you are saying that self-preservation is evil when a person becomes so totally consumed with it that they are willing to disregard the welfare of all others around them, then again I agree with you. That would indeed be wrong. And again you agree with Jesus since He taught that very same thing.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that self-preservation is always equivalent to selfishness then I would have to seriously disagree with you. And in addition, if you are saying that the hope for or actual existence of any reward of any kind in any form automatically makes a person’s motives evil then again, I must disagree with you. If these two things are held as true then consistency demands that breathing be regarded as evil. Breathing is an act of self-preservation and has a very real and immediate reward. The immediate reward is the avoidance of death and the prolongation of life. For me personally, an additional reward is that I can continue to exist in this world and love and enjoy my children and hopefully be a blessing to them for as long as God allows me. From a different perspective, if I jump out of the way of a moving train to avoid being hit by it would not that also have to be considered as evil as well? Again the reward is the avoidance of death and the prolongation of life.

Now, if the avoidance of physical death and the desire to prolong physical life is not evil, then consistently, how could the avoidance of eternal death and the hope of eternal life be regarded as evil?

Thanks, and have a great day!

Ken

 

[JustARide]

Now, if the avoidance of physical death and the desire to prolong physical life is not evil, then consistently, how could the avoidance of eternal death and the hope of eternal life be regarded as evil?

Thanks for the reply, Ken. I'm doing well. Hope you are too...

I think my wording in the last post was not ideal. I did not mean to cast self-preservation as evil (your extrapolation of that idea was appropriate and well put). My objection to Christianity's inclusion of Heaven is that that incentive seems awfully human. After all, Christianity tells us we cannot enter the realm of God unless we are without sin (any sin, no matter how small) because that is incompatible with God's perfect nature. But yet God seems to employing a fairly pragmatic, human approach here: offer goodies to those who believe and punishment to those who don't.

Heaven is not merely the promise of an afterlife--it's the promise of perfect eternal bliss; that's a pretty substantial reward (some might say big enough to warrant flying planes into buildings). Likewise, Hell is an amalgam of everything we most fear. Now, if a political party were to shower its supporters with TVs, cars, etc. and, at the same time, warn those of an opposing political party that they will be tortured with whips and chains in the dark basement of a Motel 6 if they do not switch affiliations, would we consider that taking the high road? Not hardly. However, it seems OK if our perfect, loving God does essentially that.

I'm not talking about the mere act of rewarding the good and punishing the bad--I'm talking about how Christianity's God baits believers with the prospect of overwhelming, eternal reward and frightens them with overwhelming, eternal punishment. I consider that philosophy of rule quite tyrannical. After all, what did Hitler or Stalin do, if not reward the faithful abundantly and frighten their enemies with the threat of extreme punishment? These are the tactics of greed and fear--not exactly the most admirable of human traits.

I'm at work and a bit short of time... so that may not be a complete summary of my thoughts on this matter, but oh well. Enough for debate anyway.

Josh

 

[1Dude]

Hi Josh,

Busy week like most!

My objection to Christianity's inclusion of Heaven is that that incentive seems awfully human. After all, Christianity tells us we cannot enter the realm of God unless we are without sin (any sin, no matter how small) because that is incompatible with God's perfect nature. But yet God seems to employing a fairly pragmatic, human approach here: offer goodies to those who believe and punishment to those who don't.

Heaven is not merely the promise of an afterlife--it's the promise of perfect eternal bliss; that's a pretty substantial reward (some might say big enough to warrant flying planes into buildings). Likewise, Hell is an amalgam of everything we most fear. Now, if a political party were to shower its supporters with TVs, cars, etc. and, at the same time, warn those of an opposing political party that they will be tortured with whips and chains in the dark basement of a Motel 6 if they do not switch affiliations, would we consider that taking the high road? Not hardly. However, it seems OK if our perfect, loving God does essentially that.

I'm not talking about the mere act of rewarding the good and punishing the bad--I'm talking about how Christianity's God baits believers with the prospect of overwhelming, eternal reward and frightens them with overwhelming, eternal punishment. I consider that philosophy of rule quite tyrannical. After all, what did Hitler or Stalin do, if not reward the faithful abundantly and frighten their enemies with the threat of extreme punishment? These are the tactics of greed and fear--not exactly the most admirable of human traits.

Well, He really is using, as you say, a very “pragmatic, and human approach here”. We are humans after all. He loves us and He is trying to appeal to what actually does motivate us in order to motivate us to choose a loving relationship with Him. Is that bad?

I look at this as a double positive motivator. Eternal life in the presence of the one who created me and loves me is a positive motivator. Self-preservation is also a positive and good motivator, it is not evil, and the overwhelming threat of extreme punishment in Hell can indeed create a corresponding response of fear, as you have indicated. Fear, like the desire for self preservation, is also not evil but is a positive motivator. Fear of a fast approaching train has a good chance of motivating me to get out of its way. Without that fear I would physically die. The fear of physical pain in my body also motivates me to avoid, if possible, anything that would cause it. This fear protects my body from serious harm and actually prolongs my life. Is that kind of fear bad?

I guess to me God uses both of these powerful motivators, out of love, to draw us to Himself. Is it really tyrannical of God to simply give us two positive motivators to choose something that is in our very best interest anyway? Now, if on the other hand, God were to use these very powerful motivators from a desire to destroy us then it would absolutely be tyrannical. But He does not do that. My children do not ever think that I am being tyrannical when I warn them to be careful when they cross the street. A loving father warns his children of impending harm to keep them safe. I think God is doing exactly that for us. Plus He is throwing in a really yummy ice cream sandwich when we get to the other side of the street.

2 Peter 3:9 says: “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”

I am trying to understand your point of view but am not sure if I am succeeding.

Take care!
Ken

 

[JustARide]

Hi Josh,

Busy week like most!

Yeah, I just got my first day off in about two weeks. I feel your pain.

I guess to me God uses both of these powerful motivators, out of love, to draw us to Himself. Is it really tyrannical of God to simply give us two positive motivators to choose something that is in our very best interest anyway? Now, if on the other hand, God were to use these very powerful motivators from a desire to destroy us then it would absolutely be tyrannical. But He does not do that. My children do not ever think that I am being tyrannical when I warn them to be careful when they cross the street. A loving father warns his children of impending harm to keep them safe. I think God is doing exactly that for us. Plus He is throwing in a really yummy ice cream sandwich when we get to the other side of the street.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm afraid I can't quite agree with the notion that eternal Hell is tantamount to a father warning a child not to cross the street. I've had this conversation (with that exact analogy no less!) in other threads and it usually comes down to this...

Christians like to think of Hell as both somehow within God's sphere of influence and yet not at the same time. Let me explain. You say God's actions are not tyrannical because they are warnings placed there for our own good. But the tyranny I'm talking about is one of degree. For instance, US laws are (ostensibly) inacted to protect citizens, guarantee equal protection and so forth. God's "laws" may well serve the same kind of purpose, but consider the difference. Our laws punish people, but try to reform them if possible and give second chances when warranted by circumstances, etc. Hell is not punishment to teach a lesson. You teach children lessons in the hopes that they learn and grow. You do not say to your child, "Don't cross the street or I'll kill you." There is a difference of degree, is there not? Isn't God saying, "Believe in me or be tortured forever"? That's not guidance; it's a threat.

Hell serves no rehabilitative purpose -- its neverending nature negates it. We are told Hell is eternal, therefore it cannot be punishment so much as revenge or, quite simply, unending torture. Are those in Hell there to learn a lesson? No. That would mean they had a chance to improve, to get out. Now, going back to my opening sentence -- Christians preach that God is simply warning of the consequences of our actions (Hell) and enticing us with rewards for following him (Heaven). What's the problem there?

Well, the question is: how much control over Hell and its occupants does God have? On the one hand, the church likes to say God cannot help but toss sinners into the flames (Hell is like an <i>automatic result</i> of our sin), but on the other hand, they say God created everything and has dominion over all that is. So, when God throws sinners into Hell <i>forever</i>, is that solely his choice? If it is, then I believe that system is tyrannical (after all, what did Hitler do, if not inflict overly severe punishment on those he disliked?). If it is <i>not</i> entirely God's decision but more of a requirement that he automatically dispense with the unpure souls, then God isn't really in control of everything; he is bound by a set of rules.

That may be a convoluted answer to your question. I'm not always proficient at stating my arguments on this point. Let me try again...

To go back to our analogy of the father warning the son about crossing the street... In that instance, the father is warning the son about the possible consequences of crossing the road. Now, those consequences (being hit, injured, or dying) are forces beyond the father's control. He is simply issuing a warning because he cannot control the cars in the street, nor what might happen to the child if he were hit.

In God's case, the fate of the individual <i>is</i> within God's control, or so the Bible teaches. When someone dies, it is up to God where that person goes, correct? Unlike the father, God can choose the consequences of the actions he warns us against. If "all things are possible" with God, then he can choose to treat people however he likes in the afterlife. Is he bound to casting sinners into an <i>eternal</i> Hell? Or could he decide not to? If one believes God <i>does</i> have that choice, then it is <i>God</i> who has chosen to make the penalties so stiff.

If God is in complete control of his "justice system" so to speak, he has say over what punishments are inflicted. Compare that to our earthly systems of government. In the US, for instance, we say being gay is not a crime. In Saudi Arabia, one can be executed for being gay. We have decided on different systems of punishment -- because it is up to us. Likewise, if God's system of justice is up to him, why does he feel the need to act like a dictator by forever imprisoning sinners in Hell and forever coddling believers in Heaven? His mere whim? That's what I see as tyrannical.

Whew. Another long explanation. I hope it clarified at least a few things... if not, I won't be too surprised. Hehe.

All the Best,
Josh

 

[Xev]

Quite illuminating to see how the Christians use childlike metaphors (ice-cream sandwiches and the like) and hyper-emotional language (love, happiness, father, protection) in their conversion spiels.

 

[atheroy]

If I may Josh,

If it is not entirely God's decision but more of a requirement that he automatically dispense with the unpure souls, then God isn't really in control of everything; he is bound by a set of rules.
This is what I don't understand either. No soul can attain perfection, yet I am told that god will only have perfection at his side. This is an oxymoron as even if god forgives sin like I am told, that does not eliminate the sin that was performed. Therefore no one can enter heaven because no one is without sin in their lives (or to put it another way we cannot reach perfection therefore we cannot enter heaven). So how does one get into heaven? Not that I believe in heaven. Might I add how utterly retarded I find that 76 virgins thing. If we have died, the biological mechanisms that made us want to procreate will not magically come along with our souls. So what is the use of 76 virgins? Where do they come from anyway. Man it's so retarded.

Does anyone else dislike the word sin? I personally think it's a bit of a crap word but whatever. As well, wouldn't god have a knowledge of sin just as great as his knowledge of the opposite of sin? Wouldn't that then mean god is balance? Not good or great or whatever people who believe in god believe?

By the way, go Kat. Champion

As well, Josh you're right, we have both had instances in this forum where that child crossing the road analogy has been deconstructed to show god as a vindictive thing.

Wow, I'm just rambling.

 

[§outh§tar]

Quite illuminating to see how the Christians use childlike metaphors (ice-cream sandwiches and the like) and hyper-emotional language (love, happiness, father, protection) in their conversion spiels.

Idiocy.

"Hyper-emotional"? "Childlike metaphors"? Question judgement and interpretive ability.

Think.

 

[1Dude]

Hi Josh,

You are, very obviously, an excellent and thoughtful communicator. The fault here lies with me and my really thick head. And, of course, this is also complicated by the fact that I am really a purple alien from the planet Dweeeeeeeb and English is not exactly my native language. Sorry, been reading too much Calvin and Hobbes.

Now, if you would allow me, I would like to take just a little time in getting back to you on this one. I have some ideas on the “Problem of Hell” but I would like to do a little more research on the subject. Your comments are excellent as always and deserve a quality response or at least attempt.

Is that O.K. with you?

Ken

 

[JustARide]

Certainly. Take all the time you need.

I'm from Planet Geek myself (in the larger Nerd Galaxy). Not one girlfriend in the whole damn place. Just lots of amateur musicians and Matrix fans. Oh well.

Have a good one.

Josh

 

[§outh§tar]

@ JustARide

Can you please give me a ride home then?

@ atheroy

The blood of the Lamb of God makes us perfect in the eyes of the Omniscient God. In other words, you are right "no soul can become perfect". But that does NOT mean God cannot make you perfect. He can and will if you confess to Him that you NEED Him.