A Review of Why I Rejected Christianity

I have said that if you want to debate me then get my book and review it, and I will engage you. A young man named Nick decided to do that. So he's been reviewing it chapter by chapter and I've been making some comments about it from time to time. But today he decided to review my chapter on the atonement and I am speechless. I don't know where to begin with such ignorance. See what you think:

Why I Rejected Christianity Review: Why Did Jesus Suffer?

Our review of Loftus’s book continues with a look at the atonement. Why did it happen? The theory he chooses to address and I will defend as it’s the one I hold is the penal substitution view. It is the view that Christ took our place on the cross and he received our punishment and we in turn receive his righteousness. There is a brief history of various atonement theories before this (With some left out), but that is not relevant to the point at hand.

He starts out with asking about why this is? If the claim of Christianity is true, then Loftus does admit that he goes to Hell because of his sins. However, what has anyone ever done to deserve that? He states “All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never.

I guess that settles it. Judge Loftus has spoken.

I beg to differ of course. First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it.

Now who deserves eternal separation from God? I see someone every morning when I get up and look in the mirror who does. And I think this is shocking to some because we’ve lost what sin is.

To begin with, it’s not breaking an abstract rule. It’s violating the person of God. Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is.

Sin is telling that one that he is not what he says he is. In fact, every sin is ultimately the sin of Satan. Every sin is choosing your own good over the good of God. In effect, it is you telling yourself that you will be God instead of him. It is divine treason and it cuts one off from the source of goodness and life. God simply cannot allow that sin in his presence.

Now Loftus says that in our modern society we are humane in our punishments. Perhaps we are, and perhaps that is the problem. C.S. Lewis wrote on how we seek to cure criminals rather than punish them long ago.http://www.angelfire.com/pro/lewiscs/humanitarian.html

The question is, is it just?

Loftus mentions the death penalty. I support it. I know I probably lost some readers for that, but I do. I believe man is in the image of God and to murder a man is an attack on that image of God. I believe the murderer is to pay the price by having his own life be forfeit. Of course, this is when it’s shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused did commit the crime. I have this strange belief that crime should be punished.

Loftus goes on to ask if it’s fair that he suffer eternally for one little white lie.

I’d like to meet the person whose only sin is one little white lie.

Loftus’s sins are at the beginning of his book. I have no need to go into them. My stance has been that they really don’t matter as long as one doesn’t live in them. I think they need to be confessed and repented of and the blame squarely accepted, but after that, I do believe in divine forgiveness. I know my sins and they’re not just little white lies either. We have all lived in constant rebellion against the Almighty and what we get is what we deserve.

Loftus says that we see in Scripture that God is willing to forgive if people will confess.

Yes. Absolutely. Getting out of Hell is quite simple. Just trust Christ. God does desire mercy and not sacrifice, but God is also just. He gives mercy to those who want it.

Loftus also wants to know since he became like us, why he can’t see sin from our perspective.

Let’s not consider that we shouldn’t want God to see it from our perspective. I don’t want him to. I want him to see it from his perspective. Why? It’s the true one. How do I want to view something like myself even? Do I want to see me as I see me or do I want to see me as God sees me? It would obviously be the latter because that would be the true view.

Now we may intend God no wrong in sinning, but it does not matter. We have sinned and it cannot be ignored. Even Levitical Law had a sacrifice for unintentional sins. Death was still the price. (And frankly, I know I’ve committed sins in the past knowing they were sins and I seriously doubt anyone reading my blog is in a different position.)

For the third one, did Jesus pay an infinite price? First off, Jesus did pay the price. Hebrews tells us that. The Son went and offered up his blood in the holiest sanctuary of all and God was pleased. What was the one who offered the sacrifice allowed to do with what was offered to him? Whatever he wanted. God restored the sacrifice he was given of the Son and glorified him.

How does this work? I can only imagine that on some level, there is an eternal reality in God of what happened on the cross. The Son is spoken of as the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. Do I understand this entirely? Of course not. I doubt anyone does. It doesn’t mean though that I throw out the whole thing as nonsensical. (Makes you wonder if since there’s no understood theory of naturalistic evolution out there why that isn’t thrown out as well.)

The next point is that supposedly, forgiveness doesn’t require punishment.

On a human court, that’s true, however, there are still consequences. If someone hits my car for instance, I can forgive them and tell them not to worry, but that car will still be damaged and someone will still have to fix it. On a divine level, we are violating justice itself and the price for being cut off from life is death. Someone has to die. God can’t put his holiness on a secondary level. He must treat himself as the greatest good of all.

So what happens at the cross? His justice is satisfied and his mercy is offered to all.

The fifth objection is really along the same lines.

He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?

Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me.

And yes, God does understand us perfectly and he does know about the moral law on our hearts. If there were any circumstances that put the sin in a lesser degree, God would know them better than we would. In the end, there is no one biblically who will be able to say “It was not fair.” Creation shows us that God exists plainly and the moral law on our hearts tells us that some things are right and some are wrong.

Loftus also asks where sin abides in us. This is one of those things that just makes me wonder what kind of theology was being taught. Sin is an action. Actions do not abide in us. They affect our character though and our souls. The same happens with good actions. It is those of us that do not choose to live to be what we were meant to be who get eternity apart from God.

Another theory is commented on later, but it is not the atonement theory I hold, thus I will stick to what has been said thus far. I do not find anything here that really gives me pause. I look and see “Did Jesus die on the cross? Did he rise from the dead?” Then even if I don’t understand it all, I understand that it does work, for God has told us so himself.

90 comments:

Murf said...

"Speechless? Ignorance" - Um...John. The guy is merely restating classic, orthodox theology. I haven't read your book yet, but it sounds to me (forgive me if I'm wrong) like your basic approach is, eternal, infinite punishment for what appear to be temporal sins, is unjust.

Pick up a copy of Tim Keller's book, "The Reason for God" and read his chapter on hell. Your argument seems to be a pretty good example of his overall claim that the gates of hell are locked from the inside. What was it C. S. Lewis wrote, something like if we do not say to God, "Thy will be done," God will say to us, "Okay, thy will be done, then."

You don't think it is "just" to have infinite penalty for temporal sin? You don't like that? When you stand before God what difference will THAT make? What if, when you stand before God, you discover that indeed God's actions are just and right, even though you didn't understand them because you are not God? It will be too late then.

What is stunning is that you are putting such a high value on your own view of what is just and right, especially given the fact that you have no foundation to define "just" or "right" from an evolutionary framework.

Charles Darwin to W. Graham (July 3, 1981)
"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? " 

Anonymous said...

John M.,
what is the point of punishment when there is no remediation? What good does it do to punish someone eternally? At that point it is revenge. Revenge is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus.
YOu know, turn the other cheek and all that, the meek shall inherit the earth, yada yada.

Besides that, the purpose of punishment is to change behavior. If you don't intend to change behavior, then you are just involved in self-gratification, revenge, commonly know as sadism.

Praise him, and praise him....

Quixie said...

Yes, the guy IS stating nothing but classic orthodox Christian systematic theology.

And orthodox Christian systematic theology is regarded as outmoded, obsolete, and even a caustic influence by a notably increasing number of people in the world. Personally, I think such beliefs are repugnant and downright anti-social and genocidal at heart (though luckily impotent at the moment). I think the reviewer guy is nuts. And I think that those who would cheer him on are nuts as well.

I'm not anti Christian particularly. I object to any form of mass lunacy, in whatever shape it comes.

Tightly held beliefs like the ones espoused by the reviewer are really good glimpses into why the Christian variety of religious expression will either change (¿Has it already started to? :) or otherwise become less and less relevant.

The fact is that openly irreligious people comprise over 17% of the U.S. today (the number is even higher in Europe)—up from the single digits just a couple of decades ago. And the number keeps climbing steadily.

I think religion will always be a part of our human experience. But our liturgies will always adapt, consumerate with the epoch's social and cultural development. Those who are so programmed to defend their own sect as a "final say" like this reviewer does reveals a breathtaking ignorance (yes, ignorance) of the wide variegation of archetypes and symbols that exists in the mythological narratives we've inherited and (thankfully) were wise enough to preserve.

There's great irony in the fact that the smarmy pious refer to the godless as "fools," for I have never seen anything so foolish as the initiate's desperate refusal to reflect on his/her own insignificance without projecting or clothing this yearning in feigned magnanimity and certitude. If you only knew how funny you look to the slightly more sane. I think it was Huxley that once said that a fanatic is just someone who harbors a secret doubt.

I could totally see how such ignorance as expressed in the guy's review could make one speechless. Luckily though, there are those who choose to speak truth to power right back.
I have faith in the future.

:)

peace

Ó

Jesse Weaver said...

I lost faith in christianity recently due to its lack of internal consistency and lack of correspondence to reality. This is my first comment on this site.


Nick said:
"He then asks if we die outside of the faith, what reason does God have to punish us?

Ooooooh. Let me guess. We’re sinners? Sounds like a good reason to me."

What bothers me is not that Nick is reciting fairly orthodox belief, but that he seems unwilling to even strain his mind to comprehend the atheist side of the argument. To him, we're petulant children who just need to deal with the hard "facts" of life, so he just restates them with little attempt to defend them.

John Loftus said:

“All through my entire life I have never met, nor even heard of one person, who deserved such a punishment. Never."

When one measures one legal code against another, one of the standards used is whether or not the punishments fit the crime. By that standard, the Law of Moses was superior to the code of Hammurabi because Hammurabi's code punished people who had committed the same crime differently depending on their social status. The Law of Moses is itself inferior to modern American law, largely because our law doesn't tend to execute adults for committing consensual sexual acts.

When Jesus extended the Mosaic law's punishments into eternal buring in a lake of fire, he gave every punishment the same crime. Granted, there is an obscure verse in which he claims that bad people will get few "stripes" and worse people will get more, but I can't think of anyone who has incorporated that into his/her theology in any meaningful way.

Nick said:
"First off, let me state my view of Hell. My view is not a fiery torture chamber. It is a place of darkness and isolation. In effect, it is eternal quarantine. God lets people go there and he leaves them alone. The worst suffering will be internal. People in Hell will know for all eternity that they have blown it."

This isn't orthodoxy in any form. It's the modern attempt to make oneself comfortable with the notion of the Lake of Fire Jesus describes. Revelation is actually pretty explicit in it's surreal descriptions of heaven and hell. Apparently, Hell is so close to heaven that everyone in heaven will smell the wonderful burning damned souls. My guess is that the blissful pleasures of heaven are linked the sadism of watching those atheist bloggers snap, crack, and pop. Of course, we can probably sympathize with John the Revelator. Tradition states that he was boiled in oil once or twice by heathens.

Nick said:
"Consider God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is."

Hmm, what happens when different people have different ideas of what the greatest possible being is like? For example, my idea of the greatest being is Superman without the vulnerability to kryptonite. He's someone who sits around trying to save people regardless of what they've done to him. Demonize him on talk radio? He'll still save you from falling meteors! Tug on his cape, and he still won't sucker punch you.

Nick says:
"Getting out of Hell is quite simple."
Absolutely! Do your best to be born in a country that is dominated by Christians!

John Murphy:
"What is stunning is that you are putting such a high value on your own view of what is just and right, especially given the fact that you have no foundation to define "just" or "right" from an evolutionary framework."

Why argue that? Just spend time using reason to defend your points. It's pointless to just say to someone who is obviously sentient that they are not allowed to think according to your understanding of something Darwin said.

Darwin said:
"Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

Sure we would if it could talk to us! If we found a monkey who could talk we'd pay close attention to what it said.

John Murphy said:
"You don't think it is "just" to have infinite penalty for temporal sin? You don't like that? When you stand before God what difference will THAT make?"

God claims to be just. Loftus is just evaluating that claim.

Pvblivs said...

     Is this guy really saying that he is opposed to rehabilitation and just wants to see punishment? That is what it looked like.
     It always amazes me that christians say that their god is loving. Based on my own reading of the bible and christian apologists, I am confident in my assertion that the christian god loves only himself. The requirement for "salvation" is permanent kissing of this "god's" back-end.

Evan said...

Funny how he shows up with Anselm's argument -- which is widely discredited and can be used to disprove the existence of God.

For anyone interested in using the variant of Anselm's argument to disprove the existence of God:

1. God is (by definition) a being than which no greater being can be thought.

2. Greatness includes the greatness of virtue.

3. There for God is the being than which no being could be more virtuous.

4. But virtue involves overcoming pains and danger.

5. Indeed, a being can only be properly said to be virtuous if it can suffer pain or be destroyed.

6. A God that can suffer pain or is destructible is not one than which no greater being can be thought.

7. For you can think of a greater being, that is, one which is nonsuffering and indestructible.

8. Therefore, God does not exist.

(From Walton in The Impossibility of God, Prometheus Books, 2003, Martin & Monnier, eds., p. 38)

Even more amusing is that he claims John is making self-referent logic and this is bad at one section where he says Judge Loftus has spoken.

Yet in the very NEXT paragraph he uses a heterodox version of hell that is possibly heretical and says it is "his view".

That settles it. Judge Nick has spoken.

The fact that he defends human sacrifice is bad enough, but he could at least hold consistent idea from the paragraph to paragraph.

Trou said...

First of all, just because a theology can be created that seems to make sense on a certain level and is somewhat coherent doesn't make it true. Tolkien created a whole world full of hobbits and wizards with their cultures and languages that made sense and were coherent but make believe.

As this fool mentions there are several models for the atonement so Christians can't agree, as usual, about the most important doctrine that they have.

I do believe that the concept of God's holiness has got to be the stupidest thing I ever heard of. We are supposed to believe that this attribute of holiness makes it impossible for God to be near us or vice versa. Is sin kryptonite? Yet God can be an abortionist, a mass murderer, a liar, a thief, and so on (if you need references you are being intentionally dim, this is easily proven). So God can sin with impunity and yet Jesus and the Holy Ghost still hang out with him. You'd think that if sin made one unapproachable then God couldn't live with himself yet he can't get near us because of our sin nature which he seems to share in spades.

I'm just making a guess here but I think that the concept of holiness came from the separation of the priestly class going back to Egypt and maybe beyond that used this ruse to corner the market on wealth, power and influence. They developed rituals that the common man was ignorant of that allowed them to intercede on behalf of the people which made them important and indispensable. So God had to be holy because if he wasn't then any old person could approach God. As an example, Devers found idols and asherah artifacts in ancient Israel at the time the prophets were preaching that these items needed to be destroyed and all people had to go to the temple and pay for the sacrifices and approach God the officially prescribed way.

If God wasn't holy then all this sin and punishment nonsense would be moot. God's holiness made sin into a contagious disease that required quarantine. Later on sin was recast as a debt that needed to be paid with made it somewhat better because debts can be paid but the plague can spread and infect others. This model was an improvement but the Bible is such a mish mash of contradictory nonsense that this penal atonement model became accepted as true for too long. Long enough to do damage to the world, our culture and at the cost of many lives.

Anonymous said...

For God not to punish He would be unjust. Sinning against God has infinite consequences because God is infinite in value and worth. God says Vengeance is mine I will repay. It's not sadistic for God to delight in seeing justice done. He's holy. Not to punish we be unjust. The demeaning of God would be endorsed.

Evan said...

Tom. As I see it you are saying that for God not to punish would be unjust yes?

So is it also your view that God views the sins of someone who cheated on their taxes once and thought about sleeping with their best friend's wife as being identical with the sins of a mass murderer?

If you think he does, your world and welcome to it.

If you think he does not, then why does each carry the same punishment? We would most definitely not view that as just in any legal code on earth.

Anonymous said...

Your trying to look at it with our human perspective rather than seeing sin from God's perspective.
Let me help you. Harming a tree isn't as bad as harming a dog. Harming a dog isn't as bad as harming a human. Different TYPES of being have different value. When I sin against a being that is infinite in value and worth than there's infinite consequences. The punishment fits the crime. It may not make you feel too good but there is nothing unjust about it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stu said...

My own disengagement from christianity came to a head when I saw a play called," heaven's gates,hell's domain", put on at a pentacoastal church. The actors portray a series of scenerios of people who die and face judgement. If your name is in the book, Jesus comes to meet you, if not Satan does. I found it absolutely revolting.....and evil.

To my horror, most of my christian friends thought it was excellent and truthful.It lead me to further question the orthodox christian dogmas concerning hell, the fall, atonement and suffering.

I am in a position to see human suffering everyday, so I have great sympathy for the human condition. I am certain I have never seen anyone worthy of hell.

I think most christians do not think about hell too much...if they do they somehow water it down, but biblical hell is truely the most horrific concept imaginable. It is a concept that has caused enormous suffering. Thankfully reason distroys it.

stu said...

I suppose Ghandi is recieving the same infinate punishment as Hitler and Stalin. Ghandi certainly knew of Jesus but apparently remained a Hindu.

But God is just?

paulj said...

tom wrote:
"When I sin against a being that is infinite in value and worth than there's infinite consequences. "

That sounds very Medieval. Harming or insulting a king or lord deserves greater punishment than harming a serf or beggar.

In more modern context, which is worse, defrauding a widow living social security, or defrauding a millionaire (or the government)? Does the greater 'worth' of the one make the sin worse?

How is God harmed by our sin? The image that comes to mind is a mosquito trying to bite an elephant.

Anonymous said...

I'm refering to the TYPE of being.
Let me help you. Harming a tree isn't as bad as harming a dog. Harming a dog isn't as bad as harming a human. Different TYPES of being have different value. When I sin against a being that is infinite in value and worth than there's infinite consequences. The punishment fits the crime. It may not make you feel too good but there is nothing unjust about it.
The Bible clearly states that sin is sin against God.

Steven Bently said...

First off, it appears that both John and Nick, and some of the commentors here are talking from a stance of presumming that a god, satan, and an eternal punishment, do in fact exist and that John has just suddenly decided in his book to deny the existance of a hell and all other things are justified facts.

I apologize if I am wrong, because I have not read John's book, but I will, I'm waiting for his revised version.

I wrote some things down several years ago and was going for a book and then I re-read what I wrote then and totally disagree now with what I wrote down then.

I noticed that I wrote down some things under the presumption of a Bible god and his thoughts to me, which now, with my present world view, I totally reject.

With that said, the storys of the Bible could be more believable today if we lived in a self-contained biosphere like a huge aquarium and this god creator was constantly looking at us through the glass and kept a constant tally on how many hairs are on each of our head and asses.

This premise of a self-contained biosphere is exactly the basis on how the Bible was written, we can never know god because we are separated from him by the glass (sin) the only way out is to die, but we must rise through the openimg at the top of the biosphere with our invisible souls, to meet him only if we have lived a life that is exemplary enough for him to judge us worthy to be with him, otherwise if we are not deemed worthy in his eyes, then we are cast into a burning hell, we especially look forward to those that have treated us wrongly and mistreated us to see them burn in hell forever.

This is the premise under which the Bible was written, as if we live in a fish bowl or in a gallon jug, so this god could watch us and judge as according to the things we say and do and have done in the past, this is how an all knowing god knows all there is to know about each and every one of us and our past.

But now, especially in the last 50 years, with scientific knowledge that billions of other galaxies like this one, the Milky Way galaxy, with planets and suns, do in fact exist, we should all know without a single doubt that the Bible is all a lie, written by people whom presumed that we were being watched from a position from above by an invisible god.

We shouldn't even be having these type of debates in 2008, don't get me wrong I love a good debate, but Christianity has had over 2000 years to spread it's lies, without a single shred of evidence, and it should not need to take us another 2000 years to debunk it.

paulj said...

This paper titled 'River of Fire'

orthodox press, River of Fire

gives an Eastern Orthodox view of hell as God's love. The author tries to make the case that, in contrast to Catholic and Protestant preaching, EO theology has always argued that "God, like the sun, never stops shining on good or wicked alike" - even in hell.

Whether he succeeds or not, it is an appealing alternative to the idea that God has to punish us.

Evan said...

Tom you say:

Different TYPES of being have different value. When I sin against a being that is infinite in value and worth than there's infinite consequences.

How is it possible to harm a being who is infinite?

There are 6 billion people alive today. All of them are sinning. If God can be harmed by sin, he is weak. Yet for this doctrine to be true, sin must harm him. Thus, he does not exist.

Anonymous said...

God is a personal Being. Failure to love Him is treason. It defames God and destroys human happiness. Since God is just He doesn't just sweep these crimes under the rug of the universe. They deserve to be punished. Not to punish would be unjust. The demeaning of God would be endorsed. A lie would reign at the core of reality.

This also solves the problem of evil and suffering since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God all deserve eternal suffering. Grace is never owed. God is never obligated to show anyone grace. Thus God does nothing wrong by allowing all the evil and suffering in the world.

Anonymous said...

I don't completely comprehend the infinite complexity of God's emotions.

Evan said...

God is a personal Being. Failure to love Him is treason.

This is the behavior of an insecure, petty tyrant, not of a being who can create a universe with billions of galaxies.

Is the universe really that much like North Korea?

Anonymous said...

Nope, It's the behavior of a holy and righteous God.

Vinny said...

Characterizing this as "such ignorance" seems a bit much. I haven't read your book yet John so I am not sure how you made your points, but nothing in Nick's comments strikes me as anything other than standard apologetic rambling on the topic. That never seems to have rendered you speechless in the past.

Jesse Weaver said...

I think what might bother John is the manner in which Nick makes his points. He doesn't really contend with John, he just casually dismisses them as if they were ludicrous before rambling on about christian beliefs which most of the people at this site held at one point.

Jim Holman said...

The penal view of the atonement is certainly not the only one, nor would I necessarily call it "classic" theology.

Here's an interesting description of the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement:

This emphasis on personal experience of truth flows into Orthodox theology, which has a rich heritage. Especially in the first millenium of Christian history, the Eastern Church produced significant theological and philosophical thought.

In the Western churches, both Catholic and Protestant, sin, grace, and salvation are seen primarily in legal terms. God gave humans freedom, they misused it and broke God’s commandments, and now deserve punishment. God’s grace results in forgiveness of the transgression and freedom from bondage and punishment.

The Eastern churches see the matter in a different way. For Orthodox theologians, humans were created in the image of God and made to participate fully in the divine life. The full communion with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed meant complete freedom and true humanity, for humans are most human when they are completely united with God.

The result of sin, then, was a blurring of the image of God and a barrier between God and man. The situation in which mankind has been ever since is an unnatural, less human state, which ends in the most unnatural aspect: death. Salvation, then, is a process not of justification or legal pardon, but of reestablishing man’s communion with God. This process of repairing the unity of human and divine is sometimes called “deification.” This term does not mean that humans become gods but that humans join fully with God’s divine life.

Hamilcar said...

Tom,

In an effort to show that the Punishment fits the Crime, you're conflating your "crimes". First, a crime of violence:

Punishment for harming a plant: in general, none.

Punishment for harming a dog: animal cruelty. Depending on the state, a minor felony or a misdemeanor.

Punishment for harming a person: assault or attempted murder, serious felonies

Punishment for harming God: impossible under Christian dogma: God is invulnerable and eternal.

now, a different type of "crime"

Punishment for denying a plant: plant is unaware of your denial

Punishment for denying a dog: dog is unaware of your denial, then licks your hand.

Punishment for denying a person: person is insulted. In a society with protections for free speech, no further consequence.

Punishment for denying God: unending torment of the most horrible kind throughout all eternity, with no chance for respite.

If you like, substitute the word "deny" above for something else, such as "insult" or "offend". In any case, your punishment most certainly does not fit the crime. You're trying to sneak one type of offense, by analogy, into association with another. As Evan points out, we couldn't even "harm" this God if we tried. They're not the same crimes at all. Your analogy fails.

Vinny said...

I think what might bother John is the manner in which Nick makes his points. He doesn't really contend with John, he just casually dismisses them as if they were ludicrous before rambling on about christian beliefs which most of the people at this site held at one point.

I appreciate John's frustrations, however, he invited responses to Nick's comments standing on their own merit. On that basis, they appear to be pretty standard stuff.

Anonymous said...

Standard stuff, Vinny, is not the same as truly engaging my arguments. I mean really, in response to his arguments I could just as easily say, read that chapter again.

Anonymous said...

The punishment does fit the crime. I was using the examples to show that there are different types being with different value.

The heniousness of a crime is determined not only by the nature of the action, but also by the worth of the Being offended. Sin is infinitely heinious because it is directed against an infinitely holy and perfect God.

Sin belittles the infinite worth of God's glory.

The punishment does fit the crime.

Hamilcar said...

Tom,

Here's another analogy for you:

The Unabomber writes a treatise explaining his philosophy. In it, he describes the things he's done, the reasoning and the thought process that led him to commit those acts, etc. He lays out premises and draws conclusions meant to justify his course of action.

A Disciple of the Unabomber is defending him against a Prosecutor:

P: Sending explosive packages to innocent scientists is a horrendous crime. Some people were killed, some maimed, and some luckily escaped through happenstance. This was premeditated murder.

D: Certainly not! You clearly just don't understand what was really going on. He had good reasons to do everything he did. He says so.

P: How can such crimes be justified?

D: Well, here, in paragraph 9, the Unabomber clearly establishes that the people he targeted were not actually innocents, but were fully culpable members of a dangerous oppressive class of technologists.

P: That has NOT be established. His arguments for that position are flawed and nonsensical. How is this not the premeditated murder of innocents?

D: Well, later, in paragraph 37, the Unabomber makes it plain that he's acting as a moral agent, with full justification, and that therefore he's committing no crime. He's taking action for a much greater good, which easily exceeds any temporary or individual suffering. Plus, no-one is ever truly innocent. I mean, come on, how do we know what unethical shenanigans those scientists were up to? The Unabomber was doing us a favor. He says so. In paragraph 53.

P: Clearly, he's tried to justify his actions. Clearly, you've taken his words and run with them, reinterpreting them in every way possible so as to absolve him of guilt in your mind. But he is NOT absolved. We judge him on his actions. His excuses fail. He is what he is: a monster, a murderer, and person worthy of no-one's devotion, not even yours.

Hamilcar said...

Tom,

Sin belittles the infinite worth of God's glory.

That's just silly. Take infinite worth. Now, belittle that by taking some "worth" away. You're still left with infinite worth. That's just simple math.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't take the worth away. Just as sinning against my wife doesn't take her worth away.

Jim Holman said...

tom writes: Different TYPES of being have different value. When I sin against a being that is infinite in value and worth than there's infinite consequences. The punishment fits the crime. It may not make you feel too good but there is nothing unjust about it.

But in what I assume is your version of theology, God knowingly creates a situation in which all people have an innate defect such that they cannot keep from sinning against him.

Then, like the police official in the movie Casablanca, God is shocked, shocked, to discover that people are sinning. In fact, he is so peeved that he must torture them in hell forever.

But wait, there's hope. And the hope is that you will be saved if you come to love the God who intentionally created this situation in the first place. And you love him because....well ... because if you love him you'll be saved.

But also because he "gave his only son" to die for you. Now one might think that the better solution would not have been to create such a fracked up universe in the first place.

Be that as it may, God does sacrifice his only son. Most of the suffering involved takes around six hours. So the son does not spend 20 years in a gulag, nor does he spend 7 years being tortured in a prisoner of war camp, nor does he suffer a spinal injury and spend the rest of his life paralyzed from the neck down, nor does he spend six months in agony dying from metastatic bone cancer. Not to sound ungrateful, but given the various possibilities of suffering, the son actually gets off pretty light.

So for some reason, we're supposed to love the divine person who set all this up -- who created the problem in the first place, a problem that could only be addressed by a bizarre solution -- a solution that still leaves most of mankind burning in hell forever.

All I can say is that for anyone whose moral and rational sensibilities are largely intact, all of that is just incoherent. It is ridiculous. It is almost impossible to "argue" against, because the whole thing is monstrously nonsensical from start to finish. You can't argue against it because there's nothing for the thinking mind to grab on to, no handhold, no tiny ledge of rationality to provide a foothold, no nub of morality to which one might attach a rope.

It is difficult even to ridicule it. It is a way of thinking so bizarre that it ridicules itself -- a self-ridiculing concept indeed. And all the skeptic can do is stand back in amazement when people actually try to make sense of it with words such as "justice." But such words do not help; they only add to the horror of it -- like someone adding rabies to rattlesnake venom. And to what end? To save us by destroying the ability to think rationally and morally about spiritual matters, a cure far worse than the disease ever was.

Evan said...

Tom:

It doesn't take the worth away. Just as sinning against my wife doesn't take her worth away.

You're just plain wrong. Depending on the type of "sin" you are either harming your wife physically or emotionally when you "sin" against her.

Thus, your wife is diminished by your actions. She may be a very strong person, but you must admit that she would rather you not "sin" against her than that you did and that when you do "sin" she is emotionally at a minimum bothered by it.

Therefore by your own analogy God must be bothered when we sin, and a botherable God is weak, and thus cannot be all-powerful, and therefore such a God cannot be both botherable and exist.

Anonymous said...

Even,

To belittle means to make seem less than something is. If someone slaps me it doesn't take away my worth as a human being.

Scott said...

For God not to punish He would be unjust. Sinning against God has infinite consequences because God is infinite in value and worth.

So God's hands are tied? I guess God is bound by forces outside his control.

The heniousness of a crime is determined not only by the nature of the action, but also by the worth of the Being offended. Sin is infinitely heinious because it is directed against an infinitely holy and perfect God.

First, If I rotate a gun to a random angle and pull the trigger, I'm not aiming at anything in particular. "Direction" implies intently routing something to a particular target. I cannot "aim" at God because I do not think he exists. Just as you do not direct disobedience at Allah by not praying towards Mecca.

Second, I find it odd that you use the word 'offended' in relation to God since it implies that God could be harmed, damaged or insulted in some way by human beings. One would expect an infinite being could withstand an infinite amount of disobedience. Instead, you're saying God has a finite tolerance because he can be offended by our actions.

This is merely using human attributes in an attempt to give a 'infinite being' motive.

Anonymous said...

A God who is bothered when we sin is a God of love and justice.

Rotten Arsenal said...

2 somewhat random thoughts touching on things raised in this post's comments:

1) If you want to believe that it's worse to harm a person than it is to harm a dog, that's fine. But if I'm ever in a position where a human is threatening violence against a dog, I won't hesitate to stop the human by whatever means necessary. The dog is being a dog, the human is acutely aware of the pain the dog feels.
To actually claim that the TYPE of living thing dictates it's value and level of punishment for harm done to it is egotistical. Your book may claim that god gave man some right to declare itself the "most important" living creature, but I find that repulsive. Some people argue whether dogs have souls and feelings. It's really unimportant as to the depth at which the show emotion because they show pain. We can see anger, we can see joy. These displays of emotion and feeling may not be the same as humans, but they are present and visible all the same. To simply dismiss another living thing as less should be a sin. It's saying, "yes, I can see that creature in pain, but because it is so obviously a lesser creature than I, based on the fact that I have the ability to declare that it is in fact a lesser creature, I can feel less empathy."
Dogs (to continue the example, but it could be any creature) do not start wars, they do not condemn others for sexual orientation, they do not teach hatred based on differences of breed, they do not damn others to hell because they don't think the same way. Dogs simply live. They go day to day eating, sleeping, barking, and generally being interested in new things. They are generally aggressive when threated and show something that resembles affection to other creatures they form a bond with. There is no complicated structure for a dog. There are no tax returns, speed limits, metal detectors, or concerns about oil prices for dogs. They don't need them and don't seem bothered that they don't have them.
I think it's fairly safe to say that humans cause far more problems on this planet than dogs, often in the name or because of religion (or something that is masked as religion). So don't tell me that a dog is somehow less important than a human.

2) I became an atheist in my youth (although I never really felt like I believed any of it, even as early as Kindergarten), but didn't allow myself to realize I was an atheist until my late 20's.
What started me down the final path was the realization that by christian doctrine, jews are all hellbound. It seemed crazy to me that god's chosen people will go to hell because they wouldn't accept the claims of a man who didn't fulfill the prophecies. I realized that one of these groups was most definitely wrong and then realized that in all probability, BOTH groups were wrong.
A woman I worked with at a grocery store years ago (I was maybe 16) spent one evening trying to convince me to accept Jesus. It amusing for awhile, but it became tiresome. I asked her, "So, if you don't accept Jesus, you are going to Hell?" "Yes," she replied. "So then all of the Jews are going to Hell... you know... God's chosen people?" She stammered for a second as her rational mind ran full force into her programming and eventually uttered meekly, "Well... um... yes." That's pretty much where the conversation ended.
I can't believe that an entire group of people would be damned to eternal punishment simply because they were following their interpretation of the rules. Jesus apparently couldn't have been that convincing because he was rejected by his own people.

Vinny said...

Standard stuff, Vinny, is not the same as truly engaging my arguments.

I fully agree John, but I would respectfully submit that it is not the same as "such ignorance" either.

Anonymous said...

As John Piper Has Said:

Hell is a horrible reality. It is fearful beyond expression or imagination. This awesomely terrible reality is an echo of the glory of God. The Bible assumes that it is a just and righteous recompense to all who sin. And for that to be true, how infinitely valuable and worthy must be the glory of God that sin belittles and scorns! In other words the horror of hell is an echo of the infinite worth of God's glory.

And if the death of Christ can justly deliver millions of people from deserved eternal torment, how infinite must have been the torment of the Son of God when he took our place.

So the justice of hell stands as an everlasting witness to the infinite greatness of the glory of God, and the infinite greatness of the suffering and righteous of Christ to redeem all who repent and believe in him. Hell is an echo of the glory of God.

NightFlight said...

I could never understand how keeping people alive forever via a miracle just so they can experience unending pain can be called "justice".

Evan said...

Hell is an echo of the glory of God.

Hell is necessary for Christians to believe in because they want to feel special for being Christian. The Christian God cannot be all merciful and all just. Thus again -- he can't exist. But Christians want to feel that they will be rewarded and others will be punished in their imaginary afterlife so they create Hell to punish people with *HERE AND NOW* to control their behavior *HERE AND NOW*.

Hell is a mechanism of control or Christians would never need to talk about it.

The author of the critique of John's post thinks of hell as solitary confinement, but the Bible doesn't say that, and I bet there is less agreement among Christians about what hell is like than there is about most things.

Joe E. Holman said...

Oooh!

I got downright nauseous reading that, really nauseous!

This "Nick" fellow shows no understanding whatsoever of why and how no one in the atheist's camp will not go along with his preachy, dung-for-brains excuse for a debunking.

(JH)

Scott said...

A God who is bothered when we sin is a God of love and justice.

While I can see why you might think this is a noble portrayal of God, it's a contradiction of God's 'infinite nature'.

Why is God is infinite in some cases, but finite in others?

And for whom is justice being served? By your description, God, whom is a infinite being, is more concerned about injustice performed against himself than the injustices taken against imperfect beings who could really be harmed. Who are the ones really getting hurt here?

To belittle means to make seem less than something is.

You say that as if God could be made to feel insecure by human beings. But God, being omniscient, would know his true nature. Who is God trying to impress?

Jim Holman said...

tom writes: Hell is an echo of the glory of God.

Dude, I'm really sorry. Many apologies in advance. In internet venues I try to avoid comments that can be taken as personal attacks.

But if you really believe that, you are lost. You have been overcome by a cruel ideology that has damaged your ability to think rationality and morality.

But I'm no better than you. For a number of years I believed the same thing. But over time the monstrous immorality of the doctrine of hell wore away at me, and I was able to recover.

If you can sleep at night, believing that most of the people who have ever lived, including perhaps some of your family, your acquaintances, and your coworkers, will burn in hell for all eternity, and that that has anything at all to do with the glory of God -- all I can say is God help you, because I certainly can't.

So I choose to interpret your comment as a youthful expression of enthusiasm for your chosen religion. I believe that as you grow up -- if you do -- that you will see just how wrong you are.

I did. Been there, done that, got the tshirt.

Scott said...

And if the death of Christ can justly deliver millions of people from deserved eternal torment, how infinite must have been the torment of the Son of God when he took our place.

How can human beings inflict infinite torment on anyone? It's a logical impossibility. Only an infinite being, such as God, could inflict infinite torture.

Pvblivs said...

     Far from being a being of infinite worth, the biblical god is a being of infinite depravity. A useful summary of what Tom and his god consider sin is "failing to kiss the god's rear end." A god who is concerned with that is not a god of love and justice any more than a human king similarly concerned is a king of love and justice. But Tom may be as frightened by what his god will do to him if he properly calls him a wicked tyrant as the subjects of earthly tyrants are afraid to speak out against their oppressors.
     Care to respond, Tom? So far, everything you have said is what we expect you to say if I am right.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

God is infinite in value and worth. Not to place supreme value on that which is supremely valuable is a sin. To place supreme value on that which is supremely valuable is the essence of righteousness. Sin is dishonoring God by prefering other things over Him, and acting on those preferences. When we scorn the infinite worth of God's glory then we deserve infinite punishment and suffering. Since God is holy and just then it's good that He punish sin. This isn't insecurity it's justice.

Anonymous said...

Correction to the last post

God doesn't love Himself more than He ought too. Which is pride. His love for Himself is in direct proportion to who He is. The most glorious of all beings. So He values Himself above all. This isn't egocentric for God.

God is infinite in all cases

Anonymous said...

For anyone interested you can read a few of the things I said in that chapter here.

zilch said...

Hmmm... I don't think there's much use debating Tom about God here. Why not? Because when you throws around attributes such as "infinite worth", "infinitely holy", and "perfect", then you can build a story around those attributes that says whatever you want it to. If someone disagrees, you just whomp them on the head with some sort of infinite; it doesn't really matter what kind.

Just like the Best Ice Cream Sundae in the Universe that must exist, because it cannot be imagined not to exist if it's the best, God can be outfitted with whatever characteristics you desire of Him, and the infinite nature of those Characteristics makes gainsaying impossible.

Sadly, there's no evidence that the Best Ice Cream Sundae in the Universe exists. Sadly, or luckily, there's also no evidence for God, so we don't have to bother arguing exactly what His non-existent Attributes are- unless we're philosophically minded, like the Catholic atheist George Santayana, whose religion was described as "God does not exist, and Mary is His Mother".

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is no evidence that the best ice cream sunday exist. But there is evidence that a supreme Being exists that created the universe. It's a categorical mistake to put God in the same category as an ice cream sunday.

Anonymous said...

Okay Tom,
If not an ice cream sunday, how about another godor three? Like Brahma, shiva or vishnu? There's a trinity if I've ever seen one, (and I haven't).

If Jehova, yahweh, whatever exists, then so do they. Since none of them can be disproved, they must exist.

put that in you incense burner and swing it around.

Pvblivs said...

Tom:

     "God doesn't love Himself more than He ought too. Which is pride. His love for Himself is in direct proportion to who He is."
     Spoken like a servant of a wicked king. Seriously, you look like a cowering subject who has been given the directive "Make them believe in my greatness. Or else!"
     True love does not command another to love. Nor does it punish another for not loving. You can call it "justice" all you want; but you know that it is the action of a prideful, worthless, selfish, insecure being. A claim of "who he is" is not a justification for his actions. If it would be immoral for me to do such a thing (were it in my power) it is equally immoral for your god to do such a thing.
     In short, you show that you think your god is a worthless being, whom you obey only out of fear. If he really were a being of infinite worth, he would not need to declare it; and he certainly wouldn't need you to declare it for him.

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA! That was hilarious!
I'm refering to evidence for an eternal mind. One personal infinite Being.

Anonymous said...

No, we love because He has opened our eyes to see His beauty. We love because He first loved us. We do it because we want to. Not out of compulsion. Like I said God is infinite in value and worth. I love Him more than all.

Anonymous said...

hi Tom,
I am too.
Lord Rama, the epitome of a just and righteous king, an avatar of Vishnu, the Hindu Supreme Being, had his army of monkeys build a bridge between india an Sri Lanka to rescue his beloved bride Sita from the clutches of the demon king Ravana.

Hindu is the oldest religion last time I looked. Vishnu came first, and there's more evidence for Vishnu than there is for yahweh. And I'm not talking about any wishy-washy "internal witness of the spirit". Just look at this NASA satellite photo of that bridge! Thats NASA VERIFIED baby!

Anonymous said...

now now tom,
I doubt you love god more than all because you are talking to us on the internet. If you really loved god more than all, you'd have left your friends and family, gave up everything and wandered around preaching the good news. All you need is god. You are disobeying Jesus and his intent.
"be ye perfect like your heavenly Father is perfect"
Nobody loves Jesus more than a monk does.

You're deceiving yourself.

Anonymous said...

Lee,

I can love God more than anything and still talk on the internet and have a family. It just means that I put God first in my life. I do love God more than my family. I'm not disobeying Jesus.

I take it that you must have been joking when you said that.

Anonymous said...

We are to be perfect. We can't get to God without being perfect. But I have the perfect righteousness of Christ that covers me. I do desire to press towards the goal of perfection. I do mess up though.

Pvblivs said...

Tom:

     "Like I said God is infinite in value and worth."
     Oh, you said it. You haven't convinced anyone; or, for that matter, supported the assertion. Your strategy seems to be to make the claim over and over and hope people believe it. I believe that particular strategy was known as "the Big Lie."

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

I wonder if Tom and his kind have truly considered the "grace", "justice", and "mercy" of their infinite god...

Let's take a simple mathematical inequality as an example, but let's first identify some parameters:

1) For every "saved" Christian who is judged (by god) worthy of an eternity in heaven, there are two persons who fail to meet god's criteria, and therefore are cast into hell for eternity.

2) Humanity's "reign" on earth is finite.

Now then, parameter 1 (P1) is based on an extremely conservative estimate -- the true ratio of "saved" Christian to cast-into-hell is likely closer to 1:5 or worse. All this exercise needs, however, is a simple majority, say [N: N+1]. We can argue all we want about the actual number, but I should think that any Christian with an ounce of rationality would concede that non-Christian cast-into-hell persons far exceed the "saved" Christians.

Parameter 2 (P2) is in fact unnecessary, but a given nonetheless. Christians would claim that god will end the earth at some point -- humans and all (hence, finite) -- and atheists will accept that the earth will end when its sun becomes a red giant (hence, again, finite), and that humans will have either destroyed themselves already or will be destroyed in the process (at the very least, the Big Crunch, or Infinite Expansion will rid the universe of humans eventually).

With these two simple parameters in place, we can quickly deduce god's preferred outcome, and thereby gain insight into his persona.

Since we accept by P1 that on "Judgment Day" [The Saved << The Cast-into-Hell], we can immediately see that this infinite god, in all his splendor, power, and wisdom, clearly prefers suffering.

Not only that, but since the reward/punishment system he employs is eternal, then the net result of having created this universe is eternal suffering, and no eternal reward whatsoever.

Granted, this is a net result, and Christians may well claim that they will individually benefit eternally from this so-called merciful god (various basic sources), but it cannot be denied that he clearly favors suffering.

Any being, however infinite and powerful, who favors suffering in this manner, is not worth worshipping. This Nick fellow was fond enough of Anselm's argument to cite it in his casual dismissal of John's argument, that perhaps he'll re-evaluate his notion "[Considering] God as the most awesome, holy, good, loving, powerful, intelligent being that there is. As Anselm would say, you can’t conceive of anyone greater than he is."

I can well imagine that a truly perfect being might at least consider parole, or early release based on good behavior, or a full-on pardon. At the very least, a truly perfect, all-powerful being should be expected to despise suffering rather than enthusiastically endorsing it at every level...

--
Stan

TOM said...

I have recently finished reading some Near Death Experiences and it seems that condemned people can get into heaven, but they are too ashamed of themselves and choose not to. This might be biblical as well:

1 John 3:21
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God.

John 3:19-21
Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.

Anonymous said...

The Bible clearly teaches that God is infinite in value and worth and that he's perfect in righteousness.

This isn't the same tom that wrote the above on near death experiences.

Anonymous said...

Hi tom from 3:31pm,
no I wasn't kidding.
you all talk about serving god and loving him more that anything yet you hypocritically deny the logical result that you should do what he said and do what he did. Anything else is just catering to your own comfort.

You are more comfortable not giving up everything and wandering about preaching the gospel. You don't love god enough to make yourself that uncomfortable.

It all boils down to you, you, you. You are going to go to heaven but on your terms right?
wrong, or so I'm told.

God knows whats in your heart, he knows whats in mine too doesn't he? the difference is that I am honest about it. Don't you love the irony?

Anonymous said...

Lee,

I do try to do what God wants me to do and follow in the footsteps of Christ. I do what I believe God wants me to do. How am I being hypocrytical? I do it out of love for Him. God hasn't told me that I should wonder the world all alone preaching the gospel. I'm right where God wants me to be right now.
I'm going to go to heaven because I have placed my trust in the pardon of God. I love God. It's not based on my own righteousness that I go to heaven but His.

Pvblivs said...

     "The Bible clearly teaches that God is infinite in value and worth and that he's perfect in righteousness."
     Refer back to my previous post, in which I said, "If he really were a being of infinite worth, he would not need to declare it; and he certainly wouldn't need you to declare it for him." Now, do you have any evidence other than "he said so"?

Anonymous said...

Hi Tom @1042

I do try to do what God wants me to do and follow in the footsteps of Christ. I do what I believe God wants me to do.
How do you know what god wants you to do? How do you come to believe that you do what god wants you to do? What are your grounds for this belief?

I do it out of love for Him. God hasn't told me that I should wonder the world all alone preaching the gospel. I'm right where God wants me to be right now.
Boy you sure are lucky. So many of his chosen, like the apostles, monks, mother theresa, missionaries, got sold the short end of the stick didn't they? Burned alive, killed by terrorists etc. Its really neat when God wants you to do exactly what you would probably wind up doing anyway isn't it!

I'm going to go to heaven because I have placed my trust in the pardon of God. I love God. It's not based on my own righteousness that I go to heaven but His.
you're going to heaven out of fear of the lord. Fear of hell. self-preservation. If hell was eliminated, you'd go to heaven out of the desire for eternal pleasure, happiness, the benefits package. If there was no hell or no retirmement package I wonder if you would profess a love for something you can't comprehend or detect or describe coherently.

Anonymous said...

Well yea I'll go to heaven out of fear of the lord but also because I love Him and I want to be with Him. He is the source of eternal pleasure and delight.

The fear of the lord for God's children isn't a negative experience rather it is a deeply satisfying trembling, and sweet humility and submission that rises in the presence of absolute power and holiness of God.

Like I said eirlier I love Him because He first loved me. He is the all satisfying treasure of my soul.

Anonymous said...

I know what God wants me to do by reading the scriptures and with a little common sense.

J.I. Packer has a little booklet out called the Will Of God. It's pretty good. You should get you a copy.

Anonymous said...

Hi Tom,
like I said you are very lucky that what YOU interpret from scripture coincides with your lifestyle.

Those other people that really sacrifice are just exaggerated aren't they. There's really no need for all that is there, or at least there's no need for you to do that. You've got their back don't you?

But are you sure your common sense does not include personal bias or any rationalizations?

Anonymous said...

No Lee,

If there ever comes a time where I have a choice to be burned to death or give up my faith I will be burned to death.

Like I said I love Him more than anything

MM said...

tom,

would you love God even if he was going to send you to hell?

Anonymous said...

mm,

God's not going to send me to hell because I love Him. If I didn't love Him I would blaspheme Him and hate Him. If I hated Him I would be on my way to hell. But I don't hate Him. I love Him more than anything and that's why I'm on my way to heaven. I want to be with Him forever. Children of wrath hate him. If I were one of the reprobate then yes I would hate Him. It's not until God takes out the heart of stone and puts in a heart of flesh that we do love Him. To see that He is infinite in value and worth and the most glorious Being in the universe.
He is the unique self-sufficient Being in the trinity. His love overflows throughout the universe. He doesn't need me I need Him.

Pvblivs said...

Tom:

     You didn't answer Mm's question. Would you still love your god if you were to find out that your faith was a trick played on you and that he was going to send you to eternal torment? No tangents about how that "will never happen" are requested. The question is whether that would change your love.

Anonymous said...

My God doesn't trick or decieve me. I use to hate Him when I was on my way to hell. But I don't hate Him no more. If I wasn't a Christian then yes I would hate Him. I think I did answer the question.

Anonymous said...

Hi tom,
you are so sure you're not going to hell. That is interesting, because I think it is an unjust irony that while I do things out of the goodness of my heart an advocate for the greater good with no hope for heaven, you do things out of the hope that lives in you.

Which one of us deserves the reward more? Me who expects nothing or you who expects everything?

Kind of an weird dilemma for the most intelligent being in the universe to have set up insn't it?

I guess me and Ghandi can lament over how wrong we were.

Anonymous said...

Lee,

I'm not self-righteouss. My righteousness comes from Him. I do it because I love Him. I do it to glorify God. I don't deserve any of it. It's by faith in Him that I do good deeds. Faith working itself out through love. Faith in God that He causes all things to work together for my good because I love Him. He is my reward. HIM.

Anonymous said...

Hi tom,
I just do it cause it makes sense to me and in the big picture statistically.

You and Aquinas can enjoy watching me burn.

"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), Summa Theologica.

Pvblivs said...

Tom2:

     "My God doesn't trick or decieve me."
     Of course, if he were successfully tricking you, that is what you would believe. Is there a reason you can't answer the question you are posed? Here, let me make it multiple choice for you. Pick one of the answers.
     A> "If I found out that my god was tricking me (although I don't think that is the case) I would no longer love him."
     B> "If I found out that my god was tricking me (although I don't think that is the case) I would love him just the same because it is okay if he does it."
     C> "I know my god is a deceiver. I am just trying to get new victims for him."
     You will note that option C is in bold. That is what I think the true answer is and is what I think the motivation is for your attempts to deflect the question. Still, if you want to take the question head on, I will listen to your answer.

Anonymous said...

Like I said my God doesn't trick of decieve me. It's impossible for Him to lie. He's infinite in holiness.

Pvblivs said...

Tom:

     "Like I said my God doesn't trick of decieve me. It's impossible for Him to lie. He's infinite in holiness."
     That is what I expect you to say under the assumption of option C. Specificly, if you knowingly serve a deceiver, I expect you to claim he does not lie. Enhancing it by claiming it impossible is not surprising either.

MM said...

Let's put it this way:

Suppose that God decided that he was going to send you to hell in order to demonstrate his justice and, naturally, glorify himself in the process. According to you he would be perfectly justified in doing so.

And so, if you really loved God (meaning that you desire what's best for him instead of what's best for yourself, which I believe is the definition you gave earlier), you would have to embrace and rejoice in your fate simply because it's what God wants for you, no? (in order be consistent, of course--I don't think you would actually do this).

I am saying all of this in order to point out that there is something wrong with this sort of God, i.e. someone who acts only in self-interest and then demands us to love him anyways.

AlienBaby said...

Excellent point mm! I finally figured that out when I read the book of Job critically as a grownup.

I'm so glad I found this here forum.

Jim Holman, you are funnier than hell (no pun intended) and my new hero.

Unknown said...

Greetings: Since this thread is about Christian theology, perhaps it would be ok to post my pseudo theological argument against Christianity. If the moderator thinks this inappropriate, bust a cap in this post's head. I'll just save it for next theological thread. I'm not very good at this theo-myth reasoning thing, but I'll take a stab at it nonetheless.
***********************************

An interesting contradiction between Christianity and Judaism is the formers glorification and dependence upon symbolic consumption of blood offered in sacrifice. 1 Cor. 11:23-25 relates "23: For I received from the Lord, that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, 24: and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25: In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of me."

Judaism’s alleged revelation in Lev 7:22 & 26-27 states “22: And Jehovah spoke to Moses, saying, .... 26: And no blood shall ye eat in any of your dwellings, whether it be of fowl or of cattle. 27: Whatever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, that soul shall be cut off from his peoples.”

Jesus is equated with Jehovah in the following passages. John 1:1, John 1:14, John 8:58, John 10:30-31, John 10:38-39, John 14:9, John 20:28, Acts 20:28, Col 1:16, Col 2:9, 1 Tim 3:16, Titus 2;13, Phil 2:6, Heb 1:8, Rev 1;17, and Rev 22:13.

The Bible assures the reader that Jehovah/Jesus cannot lie as expounded in the following passages. Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, 2 Sam 7:28, Titus 1:2, Heb 6:18.

If Jehovah exists, then either Judaism is a true revelation or it isn’t. If Moses got the real deal, then Jesus and Paul were wrong. On the other hand if Moses was a deceiver, then the Jews, Paul and Jesus were all incorrect. Either way Christianity is false. If Paul had the truth, then Jehovah/Jesus lied to Moses, but Jehovah/Jesus can’t lie we are told. Both Moses and Paul cannot be correct, but both can be wrong. If Moses, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan, the Davidic-Solomon-Reboaham unified empire are myths cooked up by the eighth century BCE Judean Jehovah cultists in response to the prosperity of the Omrid dynasty of the northern Israel kingdom, then Jesus, the Jews, and Paul were wrong. Christianity presupposes and requires Judaism to be a true revelation from Jehovah, but if the Bible minimalists are correct, as they appear to be, then Judaism is just another mythological religious fairytale. This would be fatal for Christianity.

Unknown said...

Tom2 said... "Like I said my God doesn't trick of decieve me. It's impossible for Him to lie. He's infinite in holiness."

Greetings Tom2

Do you know of a method whereby any person other than yourself may reliably distinguish any difference between what you think your God to be and what you imagine your God to be? How is a mind other than your own to acquire reliable knowledge distinguishing what you think you experience of your God from what you imagine of your God? To date, I've not communicated with any believer who has been able to provide such a method.

Richard M said...

"The Bible assumes that it is a just and righteous recompense to all who sin. And for that to be true, how infinitely valuable and worthy must be the glory of God that sin belittles and scorns!"

So, we know hell is just because God is infinitely worthy. And we know God is infinitely worthy because how else would hell be just? I think Im beginning to understand....

The main issue here, IMHO, is that Tom is sticking unusually tightly to the standard, though usually implied, Christian starting premises: (1) what God says, goes, and (2) what God does, is right.

[Now waive all that mess about proving what God actually said and did, if anything.]

So, atheist, you're wrong. See (1) and (2).

You cant argue with this sort of thing. All you can do is deny the premises. (Either by counterassertion or, a la Martin Gardner, declare incomprehensible and therefore meaningless the concept of "infinite" anything. I choose the former.)

So, Tom: No, if God does indeed teach Hell, then God is wrong.

Unknown said...

This is off topic, but its so disgusting and morbidly fascinating that I have to share.
******************************

Num. 25:3-4. "3. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor:
and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel. 4. And
the Lord said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people,
and hang them up before the Lord against the sun, that the
fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from Israel."

Jehovah/Jesus digs human sacrifice.
http://www.evilbible.com/Ritual_Human_Sacrifice.htm

Thanks to Joe Holman at ministerturnedatheist.org

http://ministerturnsatheist.blogspot.com/2008/03/some-atrocities-from-gods-book.html

Kevin Brown said...

Lately I've been reading Dawson Bethrick over at Brhansenburning.blogspot.com on his Incenerating Presuppositionalism blog. Dawson is an Objectivist who asserts the primacy of existence. An argument against existence of invisible magic god beings that I have deduced from Dawson's stuff follows.
**************************
To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, one must think the deity a primordial consciousness that wished reality to instantiate. Further, the theism/creationism believer must believe their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, nothingness devoid of any material, energy, knowledge, referents, relations, symbols, or concepts of any kind. It would be viewed as a consciousness that was conscious of nothing or only itself. But this is categorically impossible, for to be conscious is to be aware of reality, and meta-consciousness must necessarily rest upon a foundation of awareness. That consciousness is awareness of reality is indisputable. Without reality there can be no awareness; without awareness there can be no consciousness. Consequently, there could not have been a primordial consciousness responsible for causing reality to obtain. Lacking a valid or sound concept of "creator", all theistic or deistic religions crumble to incoherent nonsense.
**************************

I think this argument might have legs. It'd be better as a proper syllogism, and I'm going to knock it out pretty soon. But its nighty night time now.

Oh but one more thing. Please donate to John Loftus. His work is important and socially useful. The more people who get into reality and loose their God delusions, the better is our chance to avoid destroying ourselves.