July 05, 2010

Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

28) That God's punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is "Christianity's most damnable doctrine." In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn't sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!

15 comments:

  1. Put the collaboration and the OTF books on hold - stop the presses - this is the one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ;-) I'm actually thinking of expanding on this whole series as a chapter for The End of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps the proper response to the ludicrous charge that morality is a gift of theism is that the most heinous forms of immorality are the gift of theism. To steal from another to feed yourself is one thing, but to break his bones, sear his flesh, and slaughter his children takes the kind of moral zealotry that only religion inspires.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Acts 14;26 Who in times suffered all nations to walk in their own ways.

    17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent.

    Thanks Lvka, those two verses explains it all for me.

    Why do you comment here?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Lvka:

    How do those verses add to this? Banquet with invitees who make excuses and a passage supporting the rapture?

    The oddity about using them remotely analogously is that I would have to be aware of a direct invitation and I am not aware of such a thing. The analogy only works if god personally communicates with me. Also, the reality of life is that sometimes you're just busy and don't go to someone's party. Is that reason to get vengeful? Why not do what [inferior] humans do and ask your crowd of friends for a good date that works for most of them so that they can all get together and have a good time.

    The whole Luke 14 passage is just preposterous with respect to how a caring, rational human would actually do things. Also note that the master becomes angry and almost seems to spite them by having the party without them. Again, the compassionate Jesus Christians like to believe in would simply find an alternate date so that everyone could be together and enjoy each other's company.

    As a last note, now that I've thought skeptically and am open to Christianity being false, it actually de-elevates Jesus' sayings in a way that allows me to just take them as they are and think about them. Christians are rather locked into them needing to be the perfect words of god and don't seem to think about them as just plain silly in some instances. The Luke 14 reference reminds me of the the other parable banquet where the guy shows up not well dressed enough. Simple mistake and he's thrown into the outer darkness where there's a-wailin' and a-gnashin' uh da teeth. What in the world?! Let him go home and change or give him a big hug since he probably feels really stupid. I've shown up under-dressed and felt enough embarrassment over the fact that I had to spend a whole evening getting funny looks from everyone else. I didn't need my good friend/host of the party reaming me out on the side or turning me away to get the point across that I messed up!

    Sheesh... forgive prostitutes but exact hostile revenge on people who have schedule conflicts or miss the dress code??

    ReplyDelete
  6. ROTFL! :-)

    Hendy, I know that my nick-name confused you a bit, but I was talking about ACTS, not Luke's Gospel. :-)


    Steve & Hendy,

    the verses refer to God's mercy and forgiveness towards the sins of people who lived in "times of ignorance" (before getting to know the Gospel). -- since John here seems to think that everyone's going to hell in a handbasket, or some sorts...

    ReplyDelete
  7. "In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them."

    I've thought about this a lot in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow, talk about embarrassing! No idea how I read Luke instead of Acts!

    John does simply say 'people/children'. This doesn't have to apply to people who have not heard the gospel. What about me, though? I've heard and lived the gospel for 7 years and now think it might very well be a sham. I told my men's group last night that I set a deadline for Christmas to make a decision.

    My men's group leader asked me if that meant at the deadline if nothing changes that I stay or walk away. I said 'walk away.'

    If that happens, do you think I will go to hell?

    I'm not so sure he's talking about not knowing as in not knowing the gospel message but rather 1) how our finite minds can grasp an eternal beat down at all and 2) how no one knows for certain and establishing the truth about whether or not there's a spirit realm and, if so, which god is the 'real' god is not easy so how can we be punished even if we've researched the gospel message and chosen nonbelief or a 'false' belief given the unprovable nature of Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Saul of Tarsus also heard the Gospel. He completely disbelieved it. Not only that, but he fiercely persecuted the followers of Jesus Christ. But because his heart was true and sincere, he accepted Jesus when He appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Not every sincere disbeliever receives such grace in this life-time... but all will see Him one day, when they depart this life and enter the next. I hope they also will follow Saul's example when that day comes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fair enough example... though I can tell you if scales came upon my eyes and I physically heard Jesus talking to me (somehow able to verify it was him) you would say that my heart was 'true and sincere' as well because I would convert.

    It is of worth to point out that what Paul experienced is received in three ways today:
    1) to believers of the same religion, it is taken as miraculous, amazing, and revered to have had a 'mystical' experience of the divine

    2) to believers in another religion, it is taken as either counterfeit, as the 'one true' god acting through the mirage of another god, or as a plain 'ol lie

    3) depending on the content they perceive, they are considered lunatics

    On that last note, what separates what Paul experienced from what a citizen experiences when they hear god command them to bomb an abortion clinic? There seem to be only two responses:

    1) whatever one hears from god really is valid in all cases and we are obligated to continue (like an Abraham/Isaac situation)

    2) whatever one hears from god is only valid if it matches up with what common sense tells us might be god (loving, forgiving, caring things)

    If it's the first, then subjective experiences which cannot be validated by anyone else are the most convincing way to know god and must be supported by all believers as valid.

    If it's the second, one can't stand behind much of the OT as even feasibly valid since:
    1) the Israelites didn't really hear commands to slaughter nonbelievers and thus the OT loses its grounds for being considered inspired

    2) the Israelites really did hear these direct commands but it was the result of a counterfeit experience or false god speaking and thus the OT primarily is informing us about a false god or deluded band of primitive poeples

    3) god really did command those things and thus isn't worthy of being called god

    In any of those cases, I don't see much of a way forward with trusting subjective experience as solid grounds for evaluating whether god is or isn't.

    Re. your last statement, what hypothesis do you have for why 'every sincere disbeliever' does not receive the 'grace' of Jesus being revealed during this lifetime? I want to know him if he exists yet I do not know him. I'm doing more intellectual work and going through more emotional trauma over this than people who have simply just believed all their lives... yet I'm stuck without a resolve and find the answer extremely non-obvious while every believer I run into is dead sure of their own religion, of the falsehood of all other religions, and that if I am open hearted/minded enough, surely I will come to believe.

    Doesn't that strike you as odd?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Every one of us has a different cross to bear. Mine is being born and fed in the true faith, but finding myself unable to live it in my life. (Progress is tardive and slow; and the past cannot be changed).


    The moment of revelation is irrelevant. What matters is that by the time this happens, the soul has to be prepared to receive it. Paul's was, since he abhored sin and adored holiness. If someone likes certain things which are absent from the Kingdom, and sees in them [instead of seeing in the Kingdom] the purpose of life, then eternal life will mean eternal torment for him, since they won't be supplied in God's everlasting Kingdom.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Lvka:

    - there are many who also claim to have been born into the true faith. How do you establish your statement as the really true faith?

    - how can we establish what is going to be present in the Kingdom that is not present currently so I can only are about things that are present in the Kingdom?

    - do infants need to have souls 'prepared to receive' revelation? Presumably they only care about happiness (in the forms of food and comfort). I think seeing the human race as evolved primates fits quite a bit better than thinking that we are spiritual beings united to an earthly body trying to make it 'home.' I say this as because as we grow, our lives are essentially still about happiness in various forms at a basic level. From there, however, we attach theological meanings to this desire, for example:
    --- that it indicates there must be an eternal, perfect form of this happiness
    --- that those who do x, y, and z which pleases the deistic gatekeeper will be provided access to this place

    What do you think about this? Would I be wrong to assume that your statements about what is and is not in heaven will be based on the Bible? Are there any other sources? Is there any way to verify those sources other than trusting that the Holy Spirit is guiding them?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Galatians 5:19-26 would be a good place to start.

    The "fuel" for satisfying various addictions, for instance, will not be provided in the Kingdom of God, since God is dispassionate. Which is why we need to tame them while still here on earth. Every passion which enslaves the human mind has to go. We cannot serve two masters or have any other gods and idols before Him. They who hate, lust, rage, envy, covet, begrudge, pride or are addicted to drugs, alcohol, or tobacco etc. will not feel all that well in the Kingdom of love, purity, forgiveness, meekness, and dispassion -- for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >>>"If someone likes certain things which are absent from the Kingdom, and sees in them [instead of seeing in the Kingdom] the purpose of life, then eternal life will mean eternal torment for him, since they won't be supplied in God's everlasting Kingdom."

    So salvation isn't really a gift; its a reward for a "virtuous" predisposition.

    ReplyDelete

Before you waste your time with a comment that might not be acceptable read my comment policy.

Here's a hyperlink HTML for convenience:

<a href=""></a>