I contend that - at most - only two of the following three statements can be true:
- God chooses to be hidden.
- God is good.
- God sends people to suffer eternally in hell for wrong belief.
The first statement is true; his existence is uncertain. Therefore, one of the following two statements is true:
- God chooses to be hidden, and he is good, but he does NOT send people to eternal hell for wrong belief, or ...
- God chooses to be hidden, and he sends people to eternal hell for wrong belief, but he is NOT good.
If God chooses to be hidden and he sends people to hell for wrong belief, then he's not good because his hiddenness reduces religious belief to a guessing game, and I suck at guessing games.
GOD: What's your guess?
ME: Shinto?
GOD: Go fish! I mean ... Go, fish! As in, "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, they drew it to shore and sat down and gathered the good fish into vessels, but cast the bad fish away." (Matthew 13: 47,48)
It's like someone sneaking up behind you, putting her hands over your eyes, and asking, "Guess who?" But when you say "Stacy," she grabs your head, snaps your neck Steven Seagal style, and says, "Wrong! It's Kelly, asshole."
Some people maintain that God is good - even though he is hidden and sends people to hell - by comparing him to a potter. God creates us just like a potter creates pots. If a potter wants to smash some of his pots just because he feels like smashing some shit, he's still a good dude. I totally agree because I love smashing shit. I also love to light stuff on fire, so I'd also be cool with comparing God to somebody who makes wicker furniture and sometimes burns an armoire just because that's awesome.
But if you change "potter" to "dog breeder" and "pots" to "puppies with eternal souls," then I'm out because I only love smashing inanimate shit. I guess I could see myself smashing a puppy if the puppy was suffering and dying and no alternate forms of euthanasia were available. However, I couldn't ever see myself sending the puppy's soul to hell no matter how many times he unrepentantly peed on my couch.
A good God can make a planet and then blow it up just for fun. As a matter of fact, if God exists and hasn't blown up a planet just for fun, then I'm not sure he's worthy of our worship. However, you're a bad god if you make a conscious, sentient being just to torture it forever. Bad God.
But if you change "potter" to "dog breeder" and "pots" to "puppies with eternal souls," then I'm out because I only love smashing inanimate shit. I guess I could see myself smashing a puppy if the puppy was suffering and dying and no alternate forms of euthanasia were available. However, I couldn't ever see myself sending the puppy's soul to hell no matter how many times he unrepentantly peed on my couch.
A good God can make a planet and then blow it up just for fun. As a matter of fact, if God exists and hasn't blown up a planet just for fun, then I'm not sure he's worthy of our worship. However, you're a bad god if you make a conscious, sentient being just to torture it forever. Bad God.
Another defense for how a good God can be hidden and send people to hell is that the hell-bound person has rejected God and chosen hell. People with honest intellectual problems with God's existence are not rejecting God. They are rejecting the hypothesis of his existence. I don't reject unicorns or bigfoot, but I do reject the hypothesis of their existence. If the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City opened a unicorn and bigfoot exhibit, I would totally go, and to commemorate my non-rejection of both unicorns and bigfoots I would purchase two overpriced t-shirts, one that says "I'm Horny" and another that says "Big Feet, Big ..."
I accept the evidence that supports the existence of God; however, I reject the hypothesis of God's existence because I do not believe the evidence is sufficient or persuasive. This does not mean that I reject God. If sufficient, persuasive evidence of a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God existed, I would want nothing more than to spend forever with him. I do not choose hell, but that's where I'm going if Christianity is true.
The theological argument would be that God doesn't send people to hell, there are no perfectly good people who "deserve" to go to heaven, and that we're all going to hell by default. Therefore, the only way to get into heaven is through God's grace.
ReplyDeleteYou're not choosing hell. There's just nobody on Earth that deserves heaven. But God will still let you in if you believe.
So God is good if you believe in him. If you don't believe in him, then you're literally of no good to each other.
Don't get me wrong, I am in no way trying to imply that I have earned or deserve heaven. What I have a hard time with is the idea that a good and hidden God made eternal torment the default.
DeleteI have prayed countless times, "help thou mine unbelief." If belief is a gift from God, then were in smashing puppies territory.
If we're supposed to be able to accurately navigate the conflicting evidence for and against God's existence and identity, then we're in guessing game territory.
Both of those appear to undermine the assertion that God is good.
All Christians struggle with doubt. I believe that each person has a unique personal threshold between belief and unbelief. I went from an agnostic outlook that sounds an awful lot like yours to believing because I couldn't logically figure out how or why I could have come to be without a creator. It wasn't a Biblical argument that started me down the path. It was my own questioning. I friggin love your posts, because you're asking the same questions I was asking a few years ago, and it reconnects me with why I came to believe what I believe.
DeleteAnyway, since we've stipulated a Biblical God, then the Biblical explanation for hell is that even when God DIRECTLY revealed himself to people and told them what we should and shouldn't do, we humans still couldn't get it right. We chose to live out of sync with God. But he left a door open for each of us to choose to walk back through, regardless of how dumb or evil we are, no matter what we've done, no matter where we came from.
An evil God wouldn't have left that door open. The vast majority of us will choose not to walk through that door. Is God evil because he's not forcing you to go someplace you won't go to on your own?
I'm so glad you like the posts, and I'm also so glad for your comments! A couple of clarifications that didn't come up in the post:
Delete1) My friend Jamie (JStar) corrected me on the last post by reminding me that according to the Bible, God has DIRECTLY revealed himself to many individuals. I'm okay with God sending someone to eternal hell if they reject him after his DIRECT revelation. Those mofos can burn.
2) I followed Jesus with all my heart and mind and soul for 20 years (age 13 to 33). To me, it's not a question of God forcing me to go someplace I don't want to go. It's a question of me not being able to go where I want (I want God to be for real - that's why I stayed with him for 20 years) because God hasn't supplied sufficient persuasive evidence of his existence and identity.
Why would an evil god come to earth and die for the sins of the undeserving?
ReplyDeleteWould a good god allow evil to go unpunished? If a man raped your daughter, and the judge let him off, would you call that judge good because overall the man wasn't a bad guy, he just made bad choices?
As I've already commented, I reject your fist premise, that God has remained hidden. He has told us that he has revealed himself in three ways: Through his creation (Romans 1:19-20), through his Scripture, and ultimately, through Jesus Christ. You don't like that this is all we're given, but we have what we have. I wish the IRS tax code were more clear, but that doesn't mean I won't go to jail for rejecting what it does reveal.
But all three statements you posit are correct, and all three are solved in Jesus Christ. In Jesus, God revealed himself, and more than that, revealed himself as both a just judge who punishes every man for sin (condemns all sin with hell), and a merciful God who forgives undeserving man (good god). Paul says this is the ultimate dilemma of history, how God can be both just and the justifier of man, and Paul finds the answer in Christ's death and resurrection. It's not as if God lets some walk free, and others get what they don't deserve. All sin is punished.
Your arguments so far have not dealt with Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate answer to the mystery of God. I'll be interested to read that blog post. Jesus Christ received the hell that I deserved. Every argument I've ever had against God cannot get around Jesus.
Barrett, clearly I don't think Jesus is evil, and I'm sorry if you read that in the post. I believe that he's good but that he wasn't divine, just like I believe that Achilles could've kicked my ass, but he wasn't dipped in the river Styx.
DeleteI agree that a just God would not allow evil to go unpunished. However, punishment that is described as being burned alive forever is not proportional to any crime. If God is not able to rehabilitate the evildoer, then God should punish the evildoer in a manner that is proportional to the crime and then extinguish the evildoer's existence.
And what about about me? I've never done anything heinous, but my punishment will be the same eternal lake of fire that is not commensurate even with the most heinous crimes.
I think where we're not seeing eye to eye is on the eternal part of eternal hell. If salvation were universal or if hell was temporary, I don't think we have a trilemma. Problem is neither the Bible nor the Koran extend universal salvation or temporary hell.
I agree with you there, heaven is neither universal nor hell temporary.
DeleteI didn't read it into your post, but as I believe Jesus to be divine, I applied the title of "evil" to him as God.
The weight of the crime is commensurate with the glory of the one offended. Can you agree with that? If I spit at you, nothing happens. If I spit at the Queen of England, I will be in trouble. In ye olde days, I could be beheaded for far less. If my kid talks back to his sister, big whoop, they're siblings. If my kid talks back to you, I tell him not to treat adults that way. If he talks back to me, he gets a spanking and sent to his room. Like you said, let the punishment fit the crime. But "crime" is contextual.
If God is God, and the creator of the world, and the one from whom Justice flows, then an insult against God (especially telling him "F you, I'm my own god") is as repulsive as God is glorious. Anything less, and God is not glorious and not worthy of my worship.
Again, this comes back to Jesus - who represents himself as God incarnate. If there was any other way out of hell that time or sadness or sorryness could solve, Jesus died for nothing. I'd ask you why you think Jesus is good if he wasn't God, but you already know that line of reasoning. But it's this same Jesus who defined "heinousness" for a culture bent on outward actions and appearances. He said lusting after a woman is equal to having sex with her. He said cursing your brother is the same as killing him. Thinking of tax evasion is the same as doing it. When that's the standard, who can stand? Not me. I do that stuff way too often. This is a good Jesus, who judges so harshly? Unless he's right, and showing us this is merciful.
You've mentioned in previous posts that Christianity is convenient and practical. I wonder at that one... it appears that way to me too at times, especially when I walked away from it for a while. Sure would've ruffled fewer feathers if I just kept my mouth shut and my doubts to myself. But maybe that's because I don't know what real Christianity looks like. Paul certainly didn't think it was a faith of practicality. He said that if Christ isn't raised from the dead, Christians are idiots and wasting their lives. Given that you've settled on that side of faith, I think you would agree with him. But I don't think you can act like you've walked away from something practical. If it's been represented to you as a practical life choice, it's represented improperly. I guess that's something we have to live with in a "christian" nation where belief is assumed as default.
Enjoying this. I'm not going to be offended by any comments you could leave Greg. As I've already said, at least you're being honest. I never would've started a blog when I was challenging this stuff. I prefered to just rage-quit everything I was involved with and every relationship I was in. Scared my wife to death... she was sure she was next. Make sure you keep reassuring yours of your love through this.
My first reaction to the idea that "the weight of the crime is commensurate with the glory of the one offended" was to simultaneously cough and mumble "bullshit." But then I started thinking about it, and although there's more to it than that (infanticide is super-heinous even though an infant has very little glory) you may be onto something.
DeleteHowever, I really like the comparison with spitting at the Queen of England. In Aladdin, there was a guy who accused Princess Jasmine of stealing an apple, and he almost cut off her hand. From the context of that obviously well-researched, historical drama, it appears as thought the vendor in the market was within his rights to do that to a peasant (so little glory), but it was probably a capital crime to do that to the princess.
But Princess Jasmine intentionally obfuscated her identity. If she understood the law and still had that guy executed even though his actions were justified with the information that he had as a result of Jasmine's choice to not reveal her identity, then she's a bitch.
That's my issue here. Under certain circumstances, with the proper context, I could understand God sending someone to eternal hell for sinning against him. However, not if he chooses to obfuscate his existence and identity.
I haven't ever said that Christianity is convenient or practical. I may have said it's a practical choice in the Pascal's Wager post, but I also said that faith based on Pascal's Wager is not practicable.
DeleteBUT, you're not the first one to make a comment like that, so I must be communicating it somehow.
I understand that true discipleship is neither convenient nor practical.
Convenience and practicality are not what I'm after. In the comments, some people have said that Christianity is just an easy way out of life's difficulties. THAT WAS NOT ME. I think it's stupid to have a pissing contest about whether Christians or atheists have it harder. That is irrelevant.
I'll agree with you on that, the difficulty of the choice doesn't make it the right one. I must have misread the comments, I apologize.
DeleteI'll have to hold onto that Aladdin reference. That's a memorable one, and more meaningful to me than a queen of England reference...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreg, I will give you a response to the tri-lemma you have posed and try to help with the vetting. As the 3 premises are stated, I do think your conclusions follow. However there are clear problems with 2 of them. Of the 3, we have 1 that is true (#2), one that is false (#3), and one that can go either way so it's confusing (#1).
ReplyDeleteTo run it down, #1 can make sense either way because it depends on what you conclude about Jesus. If you conclude He is God himself, then obviously God is revealing himself in the most direct way, performing miracles, etc. So God would be fully revealing His identity. On the other hand, if Jesus was just a man, then I can certainly see how someone could say God seems hidden, so that becomes the key issue. A lot has been said about this already, Barrett addressed it well. As for #2, The idea that God is Good is revealed in Jesus dying for us and the Moral Standards we find in the world. This premise is not in question.
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. First, and most importantly, no one is going to Hell for wrong belief. God is not pretentious and offended by peoples beliefs such that He condemns them in light of wrong beliefs. The problem is purely in our sin and turning from God, which we have taken care of far before reaching our conclusions about God and Jesus. The value of our beliefs is that they either lead us to the Savior or away from the Savior. Second, God's purpose is not that people suffer, but as a result of our sin we have chose 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 - so He isn't torturing anyone either since He is not there. Third, God is not sending anyone to Hell, again the problem is our sin. If sin separates us from God, then Hell is simply the place for those who are already separated from Him - sinners. But you also have to remember why Hell exists - that it wasn't intended for us - and that is why it sucks. We all deserve this, but Jesus came on our behalf because we were dragged into the mess (I find it interesting that God isn't trying to save Satan or demons.) see Matthew 25:41 for Jesus' explanation of Hell.
We are all in the same dilemma, Jesus has provided the way to change our separation from God to a relationship with Him. Greg, you wouldn't know this, but I enjoy thinking through this stuff since I studied Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics and focused on much of what you are raising in your posts. So I love this discussion you are prompting and think it is great that you are willing to share what your thoughts have been. One thing that has stood out to me from the posts is that you refer to ideas that are prominent in strict Calvinist or Reformed Christianity. I should find those things you said, but the things you point out are good reasons to reject that version of Christianity. It sounds like you have been around a lot of non-thinking Christianity. The subject of Hell and God's Goodness has troubled many and it is vital that Christians can explain it better.
Greg, you'll have to edit that post where you said Duane had the last word in this post :p
ReplyDeleteYour tri-lemma fails on #1. I know you'll disagree with what I'm about to say because the old me would have disagreed the current me. But Romans 1:18-20 is true; we all know that God exists, it's our sinful nature that has suppressed this truth, so in effect we are self-deceived. How do we know God's eternal power and divine nature? There's the wonder of creation (I know this seems debatable). But there's more. There are at least two qualities in human nature that reveal to us the existence of God - our morals and our logic.
You posted in http://cpagnostic.blogspot.ca/2013/07/you-dont-really-want-to-be-ethical.html about the relative strengths as well as flaws of modern psychology in explaining our morals. The Bible reveals to us that we were made in God's image and this is in fact how you know right from wrong. I'm not talking about knowing what's good because-the-Bible-told-me-so. I'm saying that when you look at the moral law exemplified in the Ten Commandments, you realize that you already know what's right because of your built-in conscience. You might debate the first 4 because they deal with the God that you already doubt, but the remaining 6 are quite clear, and are so ingrained, you instantly felt good from the inside after returning that dollar. Now that's great by my standard, but by Biblical standards (Mt 5:46-48) you basically patted yourself in the back for doing what God already expects you to do. What about the times when you weren't so honest?
The rest of Matthew 5 clarifies the true intent of the moral law in God's commandments. I don't know about you, but as implausibly high this standard is, I know it is right, and yet I consistently fail to obey it, to the point where I have to rationalize my shortcomings on a regular basis. Rationalizing is essentially lying to ourselves that it's okay to think, say, and to things that are not okay because of one reason or another. It is a coping mechanism to deal with what the Bible reveals to us - we know God's law in our hearts, but our sinfulness makes us fail to obey this law. The Bible exposes our condition with surgical precision.
Anyway, this is already a long enough reply, so I won't expand on the next one just yet, as it is a relatively newer concept to me, and I might not do it justice. - Gerald
Gerald, Thanks a million for the comments! I've been thinking a lot about what you've said. You quoted Romans 1:20 above: "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." When I look at the world, I see what could be interpreted as God's eternal power (not sure how I'd see "divine nature," and I'm not sure what "invisible qualities" we're talking about). However, I don't see anything that is sufficient, persuasive evidence to conclusively determine God's eternal power. My skepticism is not overcome by observation of the world around me. What specifically about the physical world tipped the scales of evidence for you?
DeleteRegarding a conflicted morality, again I totally get how that can be seen as evidence for God. It also seems like it can be explained by evolution: our species has a higher chance of survival if we work together, but my genes have a better chance to propagate if I cheat just a little - not so much that we stop working together, but enough to give me an advantage. That appears to reflect human psychology very accurately to me. What are your thoughts? Is there more to conflicted human morality that I'm not seeing?
I don't think I have a definitive answer for "divine nature" and "invisible qualities" as Paul did not elaborate in that letter. I do have some personal guesses.
DeleteI used to equate "divine nature" to what we generally know as the Watchmaker argument. For example, my heart 108,000 times a day, and I could live maybe even til 50+years eating as unhealthy as I am right now. Believing that random mutations + natural selection can create this, is like believing that you can put metal scraps in a yard, run a tornado through it for X amount of times, and produce a bike - and that's just one organ. I would even argue that reproduction, which as a mechanism may seem to support eventual evolution, is by itself a designed trait! What takes more intelligence - creating a bike, or an assembly line that creates bikes? Or a machine that can reproduce itself and auto-evolve to a better machine?
I now have a second possible meaning for "divine nature", and that's our ability to reason logically. I'm not going to get into that now because I'm a noob at this so-called Transcendental Argument for God. I've gotten into 1000-comment long Facebook discussion threads with my friends over T.A.G. which got nowhere, but if you're interested, I would point you to look up Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Til.
Regarding morality. I will grant to you that what you've told me is a plausible mechanism for describing how the experience of "morality" can come to be without God. What I'm arguing, is that when God opens your mind, you will realize that (a) this mechanism, while plausible, is pure conjecture, and (b) it's really just an excuse, because when you see your sin, you will realize that you knew God existed all along. Sorry if that sounds holier-than-thou. I'm not claiming to be better because I-can-see-my-sin-and-you-can't. It's just the conclusion I've come to, a conclusion that I've evaluated, reviewed, experienced, studied, believed, and realized. Maybe I'll pause here and get some of your thoughts before continuing on my ramblings.