In my last post I claimed that if God exists, only two of the following three assertions could be true:
#1: God chooses to be hidden.
#2: God is good.
#3: God sends people to suffer eternally in hell for wrong belief.
One commenter raised some specific objections to #3. This post is a discussion of those objections.
Side
Note: The commenter, Duane Morris, has a masters in philosophy of
religion and apologetics from Talbot Theological Seminary, so he's not
faking it like me. Funny story, Duane and I both attended youth group at
North Seattle Alliance Church. In 1988 we went on a mission trip
together to Bogota, Columbia, where I (1) almost got arrested by a cop
with a machine gun, (2) purchased ill-fitting Colombian underwear, and
(3) came home with campylobacter, a stomach bug that I thought was going
to kill me. Thanks to campylobacter, I got to go to the emergency room
and poop in a cup.
Here's
what Duane says*: "Regarding premise #3, 'God sends people to suffer
eternally in hell for wrong belief,' this is not the position of
Christianity and it misunderstands 3 things." I only misunderstood one thing about Colombian underpants, so three misunderstandings necessitate a closer look.
Objection No. 1: "First, and most importantly, no one is going to Hell for wrong belief ... The problem is purely in our sin."
I
agree. Kind of. Christianity teaches that we go to hell because we sin.
Everybody sins, so everybody's going to hell. If a person was totally
sinless, that person wouldn't go to hell. That's why I agree with Duane.
However, Christianity also teaches that Jesus can save us - anybody - from our sins. Specifically, "whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." That's why I only kind of agree.
Let's
say you get invited to a party. Gundrick, who's pissed that he didn't
get invited to the party, sneaks in and dumps an entire bottle of Turbo Lax into the punch and locks the only available bathroom. After
everybody at the party drinks some punch, Gundrick shows up again, and
he's like, "I put Turbo Lax in the punch! Enjoy crapping your pants."
Then he locks everyone in the toiletless party. Lucky for you, my mom is
at the party, and she's a pharmacist, and pharmacists have bulk Imodium
on their person at all times. (Pharmacists are bound by their
professional ethics to share Imodium with anyone who will more likely
than not shit their pants.) But Stacey, Brian and Kelvin don't take the
Imodium. No one knows why. They just don't. And Stacey, Brian, and Kelvin crap there pants.
Why did they crap their pants?
They shat their pants because they didn't take the Imodium. You could have
said it was because Gundrick poisoned them - and you'd be right - but
Gundrick also poisoned my mom who did not shit her pants. Lack of
Imodium is a better answer because everyone had the Turbo Lax.
If
Christianity is true, I'm going to hell because of my wrong belief. You
can say it's because of my sin - and you'd be right - but sinfulness is
everybody's predicament. Wrong belief is a better, more nuanced explanation for why people go to hell.
Objection No. 2:
"God's purpose is not that people suffer, but as a result of our sin we
have chosen separation from God. God designed us to live forever with Him, so there must be somewhere to be instead. Hell is specifically the 'Place of
Separation,' a place where God is absent. ... [Hell] wasn't intended for us - and that is why it sucks."
I have a tough time with this for a couple reasons. First, is the idea that "God's purpose is not that people suffer." Both the Bible and the Qur'an are unequivocal in their depiction of hell as a place of immense suffering. Mark 9:47 describes hell as a place where the worm doesn't die and the fire is never quenched. The Qur'an says that hell is eternal and that "as often as their skins are roasted through, we will exchange them for other skins so that they may taste the punishment." (I know we're focusing on Christianity here, but my agnosticism extends to other religions, too.)
The best comparison
Jesus can give for separation from God is that it's like being burned
alive forever while maggots eat your flesh forever. If, to satisfy the
requirements of justice, God has to punish me with burning and maggots,
I'm okay with that. But at some point between zero and forever on the
fire and maggots timeline, the punishment is not commensurate with the
crime, and God needs to either extinguish my existence or give me the
option to come out of hell. Otherwise, once the punishment outweighs the
crime, his purpose is simply my suffering.
I'm
going to repeat that. If hell is forever - if you can't get out of hell
once you're in hell - then it's not rehabilitative. It's punitive. If
the punishment continues after justice is satisfied, the purpose of the
punisher can be nothing other than sadism. My conclusion is not that the
Christian God is a sadist. My conclusion (based on the fact that God
cannot be both good and a sadist) is that the Christian God does not
exist.
My other obstacle with Objection No. 2
is the choice. I'm not choosing separation from God. I just don't
believe he exists. Similarly, I'm not refusing to watch the remake of
Gladiator starring Chris Farley as Maximus and Will Farrell as Commodus.
I just don't believe it exists. If God made his
existence and identity obvious (not hidden), I'm confident I'd choose to
be with him because he sounds awesome. (I would also like to watch the Gladiator reboot.)
Duane and I agree. If someone truly chooses to be separated from God, then that dumbass can go straight to hell. However, what I contend is that you can't truly choose to be apart from God if you're truly convinced that he doesn't exist. If God exists, his stubborn refusal to make his existence and identity obvious precludes me from making a choice.
Objection No. 3: "God is not sending anyone to Hell ... If sin separates us from God,
then Hell is simply the place for those who are already separated from
Him - sinners."
All the verses I remember indicate that God sends people to hell. "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelations 20:15). "He
will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed,
into the eternal fire'" (Matthew 25:41). That's a lot different than
saying, "Okay, go ahead and remain in the eternal fire where you already
are." He is telling them to depart. He's sending them there. "The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace" (Matthew 13:49, 50). "Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell" (Luke 12:5). "If
your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it
away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have
two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire" (Matthew 18:8). I
think you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to circumvent the plain
reading of the Bible which indicates that God sends people to eternal
suffering (Matthew 25: 10-12) as punishment (Jude 7).
If hell wasn't eternal or if those who go there truly chose to be there, then we'd be good.
*To see Duane's comment in its entirety, go to The Trilemma of Hiddenness + Goodness + Hell. His comment was the very last one when this post was published.
Good conclusions. I agree with all of them, in regards to hell being a place God reluctantly allows unbelievers to go. God is just, he displays his Justice (which is as much a part of his glory as his mercy is) for all eternity on unbelievers in Hell.
ReplyDeleteIf God didn't want them to be there, he wouldn't send them. And if there was a way out other than Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ's death was a waste.
It's great that this discussion can take place without people getting out of sorts. I will add my response to the discussion here, first regarding your response to Objection 1.
ReplyDeleteRE "Imodium":
This is the most important part of my prior comment.
I think your response falls short of showing that a lack of belief "causes" one to go to Hell. Here's the thing, anyone who goes to Hell does so because they are "Separated from God," so whatever caused them to be separated from God is the cause of them going to Hell. Sin precedes anyone's beliefs about God, as I mentioned in my previous comment, so Sin is therefore the "Efficient Cause" or direct cause (By definition, an Efficient Cause is: The source from which an effect receives its distinction). The lack of belief is related to the issue, but it only comes into play after the problem of being separated already exists. Thus, Sin is the source of the problem, belief (or more accurately Faith) is the remedy not the cause.
Your "Imodium" analogy is problematic in a way similar to saying that a person who is stabbed and then dies 30 minutes later, about the time the Ambulance arrives, died because the Ambulance didn't get there in time. Obviously, they died because someone stabbed them, the timing of the Ambulance was unfortunate. In the same way, a person's lack of belief is unfortunate, (and maybe understandable) but it is not the cause of their separation from God. If the person had believed and trusted Jesus they would not have been separated from God - in the same way that the arrival of EMT's would have changed the circumstance and taking the Imodium would have prevented the shit. But in none of these cases is the lack of those things the Efficient Cause, it simply would have prevented the outcome (saved them if you prefer). The lack of a remedy, or not accepting the remedy, isn't the cause of the problem, but it is unfortunate and sometimes tragic. Due to the inaccuracy of your initial premise, the results of the tri-lemma you proposed doesn't seem to hold up.
Duane, at first I wasn't buying the distinction between the efficient cause and the inefficient cause (I just made up inefficient cause, but you get it). I see the adjustment I need to make to the trilemma, and I'll see if I get to the same conclusion. Please hold.
DeleteThe really appreciate the responses to the other two objections as your thoughts have challenged me to refine my explanation and strive to be clearer. Your response to objection 3 will be simpler to respond to now... I'll come back to objection 2 later.
ReplyDeleteRE God Sending People to Hell:
The verses you quote do portray the idea of God "Sending," so I need to quantify that concept. If all you mean by "sending people to Hell" is that God is having people transported there (presumably by Angels) then I don't have much to say in response because that would seem to be an insignificant objection. I say that because anyone who doesn't go to Heaven has to go somewhere and must be taken there, they don't get to just float around.
My point has to do with a particular nuance of the idea of "Sending," specifically that this is contrary to God's intent for them and He isn't suddenly deciding they deserve Hell. The determination was made against God's will by each person's Sin (because we know God "desires all to come to repentance). This is prior to coming before God, our destiny isn't suddenly decided at Judgment. God is only carrying out Justice in light of the necessary result of our separation from Him - He takes on the role of a Judge.
We know that God is reluctantly carrying out Justice because He has done everything He can do to make a way for us to escape that destiny by sending His Son Jesus to pay the penalty for us. He offers a gift to us but many do not accept it. So when I say God is not "sending" anyone to Hell, I mean He has not intended for that to happen and has gone out of His way to prevent it.
Duane, as to God's reluctance, how do you reconcile the verses that speak of God's wrath and also his pleasure in destroying the wicked? Indeed, what is salvation in the New Testament if not first a recociliation with God and a fleeing from the wrath of God to come? I agree that it is God's revealed will on earth that no man may perish (2 Peter 3:9) but that all might come to a knowledge of him, but I have a hard time saying God then reluctantly gives justice in the eternity to come, as if God's justice is somehow a higher law than he and he must subject himself to it. God delights in the extension of his Mercy and God delights in the extension of his Justice (as God delighted in the sacrifice of his Son as securing the way for both to coexist) because both his justice and his mercy are extensions of his glory.
DeleteGod will not be weeping for all eternity that there are some sinners he couldn't convince who are now suffering. Neither will we, even knowing that some of our friends and relatives will suffer in Hell because there will be no more tears and sorrow in the kingdom of God. And their smoke will rise up forever (Rev 14) as a testament to God's great mercy towards us, not as a testament to our own ability to choose, or "get it", or be smarter than anyone else.
The truth is that today is the time for salvation, and the scary thing for me - having grown up in the church, and having spent my own fair share of time walking away and treating God as irrelevant - is that that mercy may not be extended indefinitely in my own life, if I continue to treat it as a small thing. God might give me over to the hardness of my heart, and finalize it so that mercy could not be found even if I sought it with tears (Esau, Heb 12:17). And for those who have been given much, even more will be demanded of them should they refuse it. God is not beholden to anyone to offer them mercy. But, amazingly, he does. Praise God for his great grace to us.
Barrett, that's a fair question and I agree with much of what you point out. When I say "reluctantly," I am emphasizing that this is something that God does not desire (i.e. 2 Peter 3:9) and which He has sought to rescue us from - at great cost. However, I agree that God still is Glorified through the judgment of sinners as it displays both His Justice and Mercy. But God being Glorified is different from Him taking pleasure in something or delighting in it. His work of dying for us on the cross is indicative that He takes no pleasure in our condemnation. I am not aware of anywhere in Scripture that suggests this, in fact I have only seen the opposite - see Ezekiel 33:11.
DeleteGod's wrath is truly significant and is something that just hasn't come up. God's wrath is directed toward sin and sinners are the one's responsible for sin, so we do need to escape God's wrath because He will be Just in the end. But it seems clear that God does not desire to carry out His wrath on us since that is why Christ died in our place. We are saved from God's wrath ultimately, but we are first and foremost saved from our sin - Romans 6:23.
"I'm not choosing separation from God. I just don't believe he exists."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't believe he exists, then why are you worried about people being condemned to Hell?
I've had discussions with agnostics and atheists like this too many times. You ask questions about religion and theology, you feign real interest, you may even come across as a sincere questioner. You'll play along all day until the time comes in the conversation when you realize, "Oh crap, you mean the entire responsibility for the dispensation of my immortal soul lies completely with me??"
And then you pull the rug from under the whole conversation with some form of, "well, I don't believe any of this crap anyway and you believers are fools. Ha Ha! Look how smart I am!" Turns out you were masturbating with theology, reached climax with atheism and now the rest of us are mopping ourselves off.
"If hell wasn't eternal or if those who go there truly chose to be there, then we'd be good."
If you stipulate as part of a conversation that hell exists, then saying you don't believe in it doesn't save you from it. And if you believe Hell doesn't exist, then why are you worried about people going to Hell for not believing?
First off, ringit, how dare you question my sincerity? Second, sorry for blowing my gigantic theology load on you. I didn’t understand that it would require a mop. I assumed it was more of a Swiffer WetJet kind of situation.
DeleteI want to know what made you come to the conclusion that I’m insincere, that I’m feigning interest, and that I compulsively self-flagellate. (A better euphemism for theological masturbation would be “wringing the neck of the sacrificial pigeon” (Leviticus 1:14-15).)
I don’t believe God exists. By that, I mean I’m not convinced he exists. My sincerity lies in my openness to show the reasoning whereby I no longer believe in (am no longer convinced of) God’s existence. Please convince me otherwise. If there are holes in my logic or if I’m not seeing things right, tell me what I’m missing.
I did not stipulate as part of the conversation that hell exists. My conjecture was that only two of three premises could be true, one of which included the existence of hell. That’s pretty much the opposite of stipulating that hell exists.
Of course I’m worried about people going to hell for wrong belief (and by “people” I specifically mean “me”), even though I’m convinced that hell doesn’t exists. I can’t prove that an imperceptible God does not exist. Therefore, there’s a chance that God does exist and that hell is real. Even a remote possibility of eternal burning and worms mathematically requires me to take that remote possibility seriously.
This is one of the most profound videos I have ever seen.
DeleteAn atheists schools on how to proselytize - http://youtu.be/qCdCVto2MN8
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRE Objection 2:
ReplyDeleteI think you made some excellent points in this response. With the two things you address, I see that I need to refine the statement in regards to one point but I will stand by and explain the other.
I am going to stand by my assertion that "God's PURPOSE is not that people suffer." This is not to say that there isn't suffering in Hell, but this is not God's objective. You mention the statement in Jude 7: "... the punishment of eternal fire." That is an unfortunate translation, and English is the problem as the Greek does not translate in a way that we would talk. The word is Strongs #1349 and it means: "Justice, Judgment, or the Carrying out of a Sentence." It would be better translated "Just Judgment" - but we don't talk that way.
I mentioned that the reason Hell is the way it is, is that it wasn't made for us. This is so important, because if it wasn't intended for us then it is not God's purpose to have us suffer. Jesus is even clear about the fact that Hell was intended for demons in Matthew 25:41 - "...prepared for the Devil and his angels." It is essential to understand this when we struggle with why there is suffering in Hell and why it is forever.
I know you understand the Fall of Man, so the idea is that Mankind was brought into Satan's rebellion against our will (deceived), and thus we are brought into the same consequence. God has gone out of His way to make it possible for us to escape this end, while still being Just; this is of course the purpose of the Cross. Whatever you think of all that, you should at least see how it would all fit together. Notice God has not attempted to save demons who chose to rebel, Hell is "Forever" and not rehabilitative because it is the "Place of Separation" intended for them.
That leads into the second point you make about "choosing." I just noted that the demons "chose to rebel," and thus separate themselves from God, so they deserve Hell - and so does anyone else who does so, as you have emphasized. But as you pointed out, many - including yourself - are not actively choosing to be separated from God. So I realize I need to refine that statement to be more specific. I want to eliminate the word chosen and it would be better stated: "... as a result of our sin we are separated from God." We didn't sin thinking 'I want to separate myself from God....' But this is the inherent result as we participate in the rebellion against God.
Looking forward to your thoughts.
'ringit' - it is true that some people do what you have described in not taking things that seriously, perhaps many do. But you are in no position to determine that about Greg, especially from a discussion on-line. It is difficult to determine that about people even if you are in a live discussion, one-on-one. I think Greg was fairly nice to you about it and even clarified himself. I assume you mean well, so it is important to remember that even when people are sincere there are still multiple things they need to sort out, it's not as simple as answering one question.
ReplyDeleteGreg and probably Duane, how does this relate to an orthodox Jew, or a Morman, or an Islamic. I think we can all agree that these are very religious people all following one god. Yet their god is not a Christian god (or as far as my minimal knowledge leads me to understand).
ReplyDeleteThe other part of the question assumes Christianity is the only path to salvation. Assuming this is true, how do you explain the differences between say a Southern Baptist and a German Catholic. Where I come from a Southern Baptist doesn't drink or gamble, yet there is a Catholic church festival every weekend promoting drinking and gambling. Each church states that theirs is the only path to salvation.
Greg, I am very appreciative in your blog. I find myself in the same thought process as you. I always believed that if there is a heaven, good people would go regardless of their religious or acceptance of Jesus as their savior. So, thank you and please keep this going for a while so that we can all learn and form our beliefs.
Steve - Thanks a million, and I love the question! That’s where I want this conversation to go, and there will be blog posts in the future that cover religions besides Christianity.
DeleteOrthodox Jews (and Jews in general) don't emphasize the afterlife or hell, like who goes there, why, and for how long. I heard a former Orthodox Jew explain that there is an 11-month purgatory for everybody for cleansing. If hell's not forever, then my trilemma doesn't apply. And because hell's not forever, it’s going to be okay in the long run if I don't believe in an imperceptible god.
The closest thing Mormons have to hell is "outer darkness" which is reserved for those who have KNOWN the truth and turned away. So the devil will be there and Mormons to whom God directly revealed himself who turned away. For chumps like me, we’ll get "the Terrestrial Kingdom," which is still pretty good. Again, the trilemma doesn't apply, but I'm okay spending eternity in a place that doesn't involve maggots eating my burning flesh forever.
Islam is harder, and the trilemma applies. Muslim hell sucks balls. Proper belief alone does not save you from hell in Islam. Good works, like the four pillars of Islam, save you from hell. Since Allah chooses to be hidden, I don't have proper belief. If I don't have proper belief in Islam, I'm going to eat bacon because bacon is f***ing great. Bacon consumption will land me in Muslim hell. So ultimately, proper belief is required to escape hell in Islam. Therefore the trilemma still applies, which is why I’m and atheist when it comes to Islam.
Greg, correct me if I am wrong, yet I don't think you can be an atheist to Islam and not to other religions. I think you are either an atheist or you are not one. And for what it's worth, I agree about bacon. There is a restaurant in town that does a 70/30 Slider. It's 70% ground beef and 30%, yes you guessed it,bacon. To say it's good is an understatement.
DeleteHere's what I mean: There are a finite number of organized religions being practiced today. Using the trilemma (assuming the logic is sound) I can cross Islam and Christianity off the list (and any other religion that claims both a good God and eternal hell). Since Islam is off the list, I'm going to say that I'm an atheist when it comes to Islam.
DeleteHinduism believes in endless cycles of reincarnation. The trilemma doesn't apply, and I haven't figured out a solid reason to cross Hinduism off the list, so I'm an agnostic when it comes to Hinduism.
So you're right, I'm an agnostic until I can cross all religions off the list. Once every religion is off the list, then I'll be an atheist. (However, if a particular religion does not threaten eternal hell, I don't have the same impetus to disprove it.)
Greg, here are few more to cross off of your list: Asatru, Baha'l Faith, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-day Adventists.
DeleteI figured by eliminating the Heaven or Hell types, you will narrow your focus of study to find your belief.
There are still plenty of options, of which even Atheism is recognized as a religion. At least it is on the Big Religion Chart.
Steve, I'll address the second part of your question since Greg did pretty well with the first part. Although I wouldn't put to much stock in the assessments of "former Jews"... Never heard of an "11-month purgatory" within Judaism, and Old Testament Jews never thought non-Jews were going to Heaven.
DeleteAnyways, you essentially are asking about different denominational views within Christianity which, as you mentioned, assumes Christianity is the only true religion or the question wouldn't matter. Being that both Baptists and Catholics are Christian, when they say "theirs is the only path to salvation," they should be referring to Jesus or Christianity itself as opposed to other religions like Islam, Hinduism, etc. If they are saying their denomination is the only path, that is obscure and the few that have done so have gained the status of Cult (i.e. JW's).
As for the specific differences, those generally have to do with different interpretations of the Bible or are about matters of opinion - that aren't essential to Christianity - which is where your examples of drinking and gambling would fall. Issues like those are usually seen as a matter of personal conviction but sometimes people make their ideas about such things as important as their belief about Jesus. There will be no differing among denominations about the attributes of God as well as Jesus and the cross. Jesus is the same from the Catholic church on through every Protestant denomination. There is agreement on many things because they are all "Christian." Those who have changed who Jesus is are then identified as not Christian (i.e. JW's/Mormons).
Duane, I know a little about Mormons and most of my knowledge comes from a friend who is Mormon and his religion is his passion (it's a pleasure listening to him talk about his religion). My understanding is that their Jesus is the same as a Christian Jesus and the primary thing that separates the two religions is the Book of Mormon which was written as if it is the third testament (I know I dumbified this so if my understanding is incorrect, please clarify). How is the Mormon Jesus different than a Christian Jesus?
DeleteGreat question Steve, this difference is something that many are not aware of. In Mormonism, Jesus is a created being (apparently conceived through sexual relations with Mary) who attains deity or becomes God - but he was created by another god so he is still called the "Son of God," which creates the confusion. In Christianity, Jesus is the uncreated and eternally existing God who becomes a man. So we have basically opposite conceptions of Jesus - 1. A created man who becomes God or 2. the Eternal God who becomes a man. As your friend says, they do believe that Jesus is the redeemer and died for us, so they agree on what Jesus "did." The philosophical challenge for Mormonism then is how can a man die for the rest of us? Christianity of course says no man can do that, only God himself taking on human form can give up His life for sinners.
DeleteOther big differences between the two religions are, first, that since Jesus became a god, others can follow his example to do the same. So Mormonism has multiple god's and is therefore a Polytheistic religion. They only worship one - the god of this world - but many others who became god's exist. Christianity is of course Monotheistic and believes the one true God is the only God there ever was or will be. To quote the Mormon Website: "Latter-day Saints believe ... — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose." This means Mormons deny the Trinity, which is a core Christian belief, so they have a different God as well. Another quote: "God is an exalted man, that He is a separate and distinct personage from the Son and the Holy Ghost." So God the Father was also a man who became a god as well - "was exalted."
Another difference is the Mormon belief that each of us existed before we came into this world. Quote from their website: "Your life didn’t begin at birth.... Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy." Christians on the other hand believe we were created when we came into this world. The angels and demons were the ones who were in heaven with God. Anyway, there is a taste, I was finding it interesting so I gave you more than you asked for, but hopefully it made things a little clearer.
thank you for the clarification. It's easy to overlook some of these things.
Delete