However, I do live by the principle that “what I *am* convinced of is enough for me to believe in and affirm Jesus as the ‘truth, the life, and the way,’ and I live accordingly even though I have outstanding questions and doubts.”
1. Why eternal damnation? Doesn’t that seem like overkill?
The best model I can find for answering this question is in comparing the human perspective to the divine one.
The Human Perspective
To me, it seems that if God cared for us, he wouldn’t let even one person die and go to hell – I mean, an eternity of punishment for a short lifetime (one that is biblically described as having the duration of a “wave tossed in the ocean, a vapor in the wind” – as is put in the excellent song I Am Yours by Casting Crowns) seems like overkill – it seems unjust.
Not only that, no matter how evil my children were, I would still love them, and if I had it in my power, I would not set up such eternal consequences for them.
The Divine Perspective
What is clear from scripture is that God is concerned about everyone. It says that God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” But if he wants all to be saved, why aren’t they?
The standard Christian answer is, he has given us free will, which includes the possibility of straying from God. If God created us without this ability, they reason, then we would be robots with no free will. But God wants us to choose to love Him. However, I don’t fully buy this idea, for this reason. Why then is there no sin in heaven? Are we automatons there? And if not, then why couldn’t that same arrangement been made here? No sin, no automatons. You can’t have it both ways.
Again, the real question is, does this punishment fit the crime? In our minds, no. But the crime of rejecting God may be much more serious than we think, in God’s eyes. He is holy and pure, and we have become unholy and impure through Adam’s sin, and through our own. If we reject God’s offer, perhaps the punishment is just. But I’m not entirely convinced.
In fact, this question drove me away from Xianity for many years. I have never found a satisfying answer for it, but yet, have returned to Xianity because it still makes more sense than any other world view, and because I am convinced, both intelletually and experientially, that Jesus is who Xians claim him to be – a personal, risen, loving presence who transforms hearts with faith.
2. If God loves us, why did He even create the possibility of eternal hell?
Of course, the bible teaches that hell was not created for humans, but for “the devil and his angels.” Of course, I am not sure, but the word angels here could be translated as “messengers,” which might also include humans, but a common Christian perspective is that man was never meant for hell, nor hell for man.
But this brings up many other questions. Since angels are sentient beings created by God, does God not care about them? Does it prove that God is love because he created eternal torment for sentient beings, but not *us*?
Most of the teachings on the necessity of hell focus on the dual nature of God – on one hand, LOVE, and on the other, HOLINESS and JUSTICE. I am convinced that, in a world with evil, you can not say you love without also enforcing justice. In fact, if you always exercise mercy to the wicked, not only will they continue to run over you and do more wickedness, but you subvert justice. Can you love the weak and helpless if you have the power to stop the injustices against them, but do nothing in the name of mercy?
God’s justice is the same – based on love for those who have been sinned against. And based on holiness – he can not leave the scales of justice unbalanced. So hell is not a sign of a lack of love, but a necessity of love and truth working together. Hard to swallow, but you come up with a better model, considering that you do have evil, and must deal with it fairly.
3. If God can see the future, why did he even bother to create a reality with such dire consequences?
Hell if I know (pun intended). *I* would have created earth with no possibility of evil or loss. But that’s not what we’ve got. So we have to make sense out of what is, not what we think ought to be.
4. If God knows who will choose Him and who will not, why does he even let such people be born?
Actually, the whole idea of choosing God brings in the question of predestination v. free will. Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrine emphasizes man’s need for God, teaching (correctly, I think) that God hardens the hearts of those who are not going to choose Him, – we can’t even choose God unless he reaches out to us first. So that no one can brag about their ability, God says “unless I reach out to you first, you can’t choose Me.” However, in order to preserve our culpability, we do have the free will to respond. But hence lies the mystery of the predestination/free will controversy.
So why does he blame us if we don’t choose Him, since it depends on Him as the first, and perhaps the ongoing cause? This very question arises in scripture, and much to the chagrin of the educated, Paul the apostle replies thus (Romans 9):
All we’re saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill.
19Are you going to object, “So how can God blame us for anything since he’s in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?”
20Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question? Clay doesn’t talk back to the fingers that mold it, saying, “Why did you shape me like this?” 21Isn’t it obvious that a potter has a perfect right to shape one lump of clay into a vase for holding flowers and another into a pot for cooking beans? 22If God needs one style of pottery especially designed to show his angry displeasure 23and another style carefully crafted to show his glorious goodness, isn’t that all right?
The answer is, God does what He wants. He made us, He can throw us away. Further, the fact that He has mercy on anyone is His prerogative. He could let us all go to hell and be justified in doing so.
5. What does God know, and when does He know it?
Actually, this is the title of a new book by Millard Erickson, someone I consider to be one of the top evangelical theologian of our time. His classic Christian Theology is a readable, must-have one-volume reference book on all the basics of evangelical theology. His new book is just one in a slew of new books exploring this new theology, called “open theism.” I am not entirely sure what it is about, but my limited understanding is that while God “knows” the ultimate outcomes, he does not control the particulars. And, in some sense, He might now even “know” because He has let us determine our future. He only knows in the light of existing outside of time. I know that doesn’t make sense, I’m reaching beyond my grasp here.
But I guess what I am trying to say is that in a sense, God knows, but in another, it is not predetermined entirely – that’s why prayer can make a difference – because events, perhaps even outcomes, are possible but not predetermined. And for this reason, God is not cruelly allowing the “damned” to come into existence, because that is not entirely set in stone.
However, if even one could be damned, why take the chance? I have to admit, this “pastor” can’t really adequately answer that question. But as I said, I don’t reject faith because of some of the hard questions. Sure, I don’t want to abandon intellect and reason. But this same intellect and reason has allowed me to draw other conclusions that force me to accept Christ as the truth. And this same intellect acknowledges the limits of reason. I can live with that.
"God's justice is the same – based on love for those who have been sinned against. And based on holiness – he can not leave the scales of justice unbalanced. So hell is not a sign of a lack of love, but a necessity of love and truth working together. Hard to swallow, but you come up with a better model, considering that you do have evil, and must deal with it fairly."
I don't have to "come up" with a better model, one already exists. Buddhist and Hindu theology includes the concept of rebirth (or reincarnation). Thus, no matter how bad one is in this life, there are numberless lives to expiate one's evil deeds (or karmic actions) and, eventually, achieve the level of knowledge, wisdom and enlightenment, and release from the wheel of death and rebirth. The xtian model, allowing only one life and then eternal torture or eternal bliss, pales in comparison. It's cruel and stupid and arbitrary.
Basically, you seem to be saying that God damns human beings to an eternity of torment because he wants to and he has the power. He comes off as a cruel and irrational child. Just because we don't bow down before him, because, in our ignorance, we cross his whim, we can be tortured for all eternity! Absurd. I'm sorry, but this idea of damnation and hell disqualifies the xtian god from serious consideration. I'll take the human and reasonable Buddhist system any day.
I see the Buddhist model as cruel – while the Xian God says that somone died in my place (real love), Buddhism offers no such hope for the wicked. If I have done terrible things, Buddhism says that I have to work it off over several, perhaps thousands of lifetimes. That may be just, but is not good news. Compared to that, Jesus offers justice, and freedom from the almost everlasting climb of Buddhism. Besides which, the scriptures teach that we don't just need to improve, we need rebirth – to have God give us a new spirit and renew us, not just improve the original us. Buddhism may be just, but Christianity is just and merciful and loving.
As to God sounding childish, I don't hear it that way. I hear it as the thing made (humans) having the audacity and pride to question God – certainly God does not smack us down for questioning, but basically I read it as, if we don't like the answer because it doesn't make sense to our limited brains, it is no use accusing God. We should humble ourselves before his greatness and say "you are right."
In fact, that's how I picture the judgement – God will say to those who reject him "you are guilty" and they, with "weeping and gnashing of teeth" will say "I have nowhere to hide from your purity and truth, I wish the mountains could fall on me and hide me from you – you are right to condemn me."
If that sounds distasteful to us, I think it is for two reasons – one, it shows that we don't like the idea of judgement, or those who wield it as a weapon to force people to believe, but two, it shows that we have little idea how unclean we really are and no understanding of what it means to see ourselves in the light of God's purity.
Well, there ya go: the essence of xtianity – moralism. It's an interesting system really, positing that all humans, no matter what, are just so wicked and impure that we can't live up to this impossible demand, and that if we don't just give in and believe (no matter how unlikely we find it), we'll be tormented forever. It's just more power politics, and fear. "If you don't swallow your doubts and believe in our religion, you're eternal toast (literally)." And, of course, we're bound with the barbed wire of moralism so that we have no freedom at all: "We should humble ourselves before his greatness and say 'you are right.'"
What an excellent system to lead people around by the nose! No real explanation: that's just the way it is, so get used to it. Don't question; don't be yourself; forgo all integrity and just believe what the churches and the priests and the ministers and all their minions tell you because if you don't, it's toast time.
On Buddhism, I think you are misrepresenting it. Yes, we are confronted with the possiblity of thousands or millions of unpleasant re-births, but the Buddha offered an alternative, a way out that we can perform ourselves without resorting to some possibly mythical savior. And it isn't merely about the afterlife, but in relieving suffering, fear and anxiety in THIS life as well. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path will do this, here and now. And it has the added attraction of being psychologically sound and avoids threats and fear and eternal damnation. It doesn't directly address the conundrum of God, but allows for the possibility. It's a way to change one's mind and being right here and now, and expiates karma. Finally, to me, it just makes more sense.
It's an interesting system really, positing that all humans, no matter what, are just so wicked and impure that we can't live up to this impossible demand, and that if we don't just give in and believe (no matter how unlikely we find it), we'll be tormented forever.
Actually, I think that you are taking one feature, one look at God in the scriptures, and using it to represent the entire thing. I don't like resorting to "that's just the way it is and we must submit" card in argumentation, and much of the bible and biblical world view does not resort to such "anti-intellectual fear tactics."
It does use the approach in this one case because it is answering a specific question, not because this is the recommended approach to the gospel. For some of the hardest questions, we have to accept that we may not be able to comprehend the answer. If we are extremists, we will either expect to can undersand nothing (and just "trust"), or everything (which is omniscience, not attainable). We should endeavor always to understand, but as I intimated in another post, after faith comes, reason must be the servant following in faith's wake, else we are always limited by our reasoning.
What an excellent system to lead people around by the nose!
The characterization of leading people by the nose is not only pejorative and paternalistic, it doesn't represent biblical xianity – now, it may actually represent some churchs' approach, but that is another matter.
There is plenty to commend the teachings of Jesus and Paul regarding love. But we can't leave out truth because it is offensive. Honesty may seem cruel, but to leave out the perils of disobedience is really cruel, like not telling a smoker that it could kill them because we don't want to upset them. Sure, browbeating with the truth might not be any good, but keeping it from them isn't love either.
Regarding motivation in spirituality, fear is not the best motivator, but for many, it is the intial motivator to wake them from stupor. That's why the scriptures teach that "the fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom." Not the end. I liken this to the proverbs that say "a wise man recieves in struction, but the rod of correction is for the fool." Because when we are foolish, wisdom doesn't have entrance into our hearts and minds – only pain, or the threat of pain, will wake us. However, once we have awakened, then love of truth, and the goodness of God "which leads men to repentance" is our motivation.
On Buddhism, I think you are misrepresenting it.
Regarding Buddhism, there is much good in the Buddhist practices and viewpoints that lead to self acceptance and self love, and compassion towards others. It also has excellent perspectives on alleviating suffering here. In fact, I have benefitted much from my practices and studies of Buddhism, and plan to write on it when I can.
I take issue, however, with Buddhist soteriology, which is of course, as unprovable as the Xian view of what happens in the life to come. I mean, "the possiblity of thousands or millions of unpleasant re-births"??? OMFG, that is a horrific idea. That is why I believe that the Xian view is much more hopeful for those who are not close to full enlightenment ;). Seriously though, I am not making light of Buddhist practice or spirituality, nor do I excuse Christians who've "got their ticket to heaven," and so fail to pursue the path of peace and life in this life. I am merely saying that for the life to come, I find the Xian view more hopeful, and just as reasonable (or unreasonable ;) as the Buddhist view.
And it is somewhat of a mischaracterization of Xianity to be only focused on the life to come. Recent theology may have focused on that, but Xianity promises to heal the past, give joy and deliverance now, and promises hope for the future.
Oh well, I didn't suppose we'd come to agreement.
To repeat: I'm not totally against certain aspects of xtianity. I appreciate the OT emphasis on justice – I just reject it when it violates that commitment (as in the case of gay people). I love the Psalms and Ecclesiastes. There is much wisdom in the NT, particularly in the stories and parables of Jesus and a few lines from Paul's writings. Where I part company is in the emphasis on "salvation" and damnation. Sorry, but I don't connect there. There is a modern train of thought that seeks to appreciate Jesus in a new way – Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong among them – that appeals to me.
As to Buddhism vs. Xtianity: at least the Buddhists don't consign human beings to an eternity of hell, no matter how tough they are otherwise. That is unconscionable.
As for me, if I have my way there will be nothing after death. Really: that is NOTHING at all. I don't want my existence to continue after my physical death. I don't even want "heaven." I am concerned with THIS life, not some theoretical life to come. As such, the Buddhist programme is superior for me. No moralistic bullsh*t; no fear or judgment or condemnation; no propitiating some theoretical big daddy in the sky – just trying to make this life a good and content and helpful as possible. Thus, xtianity's threats and promises are irrelevant to me. Jesus is a good guy and I rever him, but that's about it.
BTW, do i get any credit for my critical questions and less than dogmatic answers? :D
I’ll credit you for asking hard questions, Dan, and for admitting you haven’t got satisfying answers for them.
In brief, your position seems to be: Sure, it seems unfair and unjust to us, but it all makes sense to God somehow. Which is a cop out, but at least you seem aware of that.
Some possible answers you may not have considered:
As with humans, there is a gulf between what one says, and what one does. Talk is cheap. Anyone can say they are loving, just, and merciful, but one’s true character is revealed by one’s deeds.
Unfortunately, God’s actions in the Bible are often cruel, unjust, and vicious. Why does God’s injustice not match his public image of justice? Because it’s all image. God just has good PR.
Maybe deists are right: God has no particular concern for humanity or justice. Despite what Christians and others like to believe, our universe’s creator does not intervene in our lives, harken to our prayers, or judge us after we die. We’re no more special than ants to an indifferent god.
Eyeâ€forâ€anâ€eye infidelâ€stoning slaveâ€owning Bronze Age Hebrews had a primitive sense of justice, so too does the deity they invented. Over millenia since, humanity grew much more civilized, putting believers in modern reconceptions of their Abrahamic God in an uncomfortable position of turning a blind eye to their holy books (Bible, Qu’ran) showing their deity promoting its ancient inventors’ barbarous, savage values.
Sure, 10 points.