God's justice and hell, with David and Wonders

[Emery]

So what do you think about this week's guest David, joining Emery in beating up Wonders? Did Wonders deflect most of the blows with his pesky suit of armor? Check out show 38, and post your comments here.

[JustJim]

I just listened to the podcast, and found it interesting, but maybe too general and too dragged on. The concepts of justice and hell needed to be narrowed down more, I think. Christians have many different ideas about hell, few of which can be even loosely reconciled with the stereotypical Christian view of God, but I think David hit an important nail on the head when he said that if there's no hell, what do we need saving from? When he said that, I thought, "Gee... no WONDER Christians hang on so tightly to hell! Without it, their entire theology falls apart!" So, to maintain the theology, at least some kind of hell - one that's worse than heaven or earth or annihilation, has to be supported. Wonders did his usual pretty good job of it from his point of view.

And I can't believe you let it go on and on and on... with only a couple minutes left and throwing out the question of "What's the meaning of life?" and expecting answers in a minute or so.... LOL.... And David's last-minute presentation of a nutshell version of his entire belief system? What was that all about and why was it part of a podcast about justice and hell? Don't be afraid to edit...

Jim

P.S. I was going to ask if David was someone from the forum, until at the very last minute Emery invited him to come on the forum to respond to people's comments. So, if he's not from the forum, where'd you find him?

[wondersforoyarsa]

Hi Jim,

I agree that it was rather rambley, and I take some responsibility for that I'm sure. It probably would have been better to focus the entire thing on God's justice and Hell, and I feel like my responses were normally not parried (which they were often easy enough to parry) but rather a new line of argument was opened up. It would have been better to have more point-counterpoint.

But that's what you get with a more spontaneous informal show, I fear. The coffee shop feel that we all love sometimes leads to rambling. Thankfully, we can continue the discussion some here.

By the way, I've decided to cut back my contribution to the forum some again. I've been getting far too pissy and irritable lately with the atheists here, and don't feel like I've been raising the level of dialog like I used to. But perhaps I can limit myself to this thread and topic for a while, and stay positive and productive.

(more impassioned defense of Hell forthcoming)

[david]

<< And I can't believe you let it go on and on and on... with only a couple minutes left and throwing out the question of "What's the meaning of life?" and expecting answers in a minute or so.... LOL.... And David's last-minute presentation of a nutshell version of his entire belief system? What was that all about and why was it part of a podcast about justice and hell? Don't be afraid to edit... >>

Hi everyone, this is David from the new show. Thank you again Emery for the opportunity to be on the show. Thank you too Wonders, I enjoyed the discussion, and I will be checking out your blog. I will do my best to respond to any questions or discussion. Yeah, I'm sorry for the last-minute nutshell thing of my belief systems. I was trying not to overstep my place on the show, but I was so nervous in the beginning, that I sweeped right past some of my "testimony" and then some of those key things of who I am now and what I believe. I relate with Emery very much as an x-Christian, and I just wanted to give a better snapshot of who I am now. Perhaps how Emery and myself are similar, yet different too.

As far as who I am, and where I came from (since not from these forums), I had simply e-mailed Emery and asked him if he thought a slightly different angle on a future show was a good idea. I felt I had some things to say that I haven't "heard" said before. Granted, I hadn't participated in these forums, so I represent an audio-only fan of the show. Here's a little more of what I wrote to Emery, so more about me:

>>> I do not consider myself an atheist, but darn close. I certainly do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I am 43 years old, been married for over 16 years now and have three kids, a girl, 14, boy, 12 and a boy, 4. I was "saved" at the age of 13, in front of the TV during an Oral Roberts show. With my then early converted Christian Dad at my side. My mother had left him two years before and he was shocked I guess, turning his life around and becoming a Christian. He wasn't a bad person, but he quit drinking, smoking, cursing, etc., and followed Christ. He was a big fan of Oral Roberts too. We went to a southern Baptist church which had become Charismatic. At 15, I was baptized in the Holy Spirit and could speak in tongues some.

Throughout my teens and young adulthood, I "back-slid", but was still a very ethical, moral person mostly, other than partying quite a bit. I turned back to Christ seriously at about 26 (after I was in the Army), then again with my wife when I was about 33 (out of the Army, two kids). We went to a great church for a year and a half. Then moved.

Around 2000 or so I think, I was about 36, I began for the first time ever to seriously consider pursuing my biggest concern with my Christianity. There was a problem that I had even as a teenager, but would put aside. The problem was the concept of Hell, and of eternal damnation. I finally couldn't overlook this, or sweeten it up. I should mention that as I grew older, my hobby, if you will, was also the topic of logic, and logical fallacies. Plus, I was reading skeptical web pages about debunking pseudo-science and the supernatural, plus bogus products and marketing, etc. I've enjoyed reading randi.org, skepdic.com, Skeptic magazine, plus quackwatch.com.

So, by 2001 or so, I had dumped my Christian faith. I don't tell my kids that, though they have suspicions at this point, that is my two older kids.

My problem is that we are supposed to believe in this loving, caring, just, personal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God. Yet, we are ultimately judged for all eternity for actions that we make ignorantly in the period of 100 years (if we're really lucky). Then, this God that showed so many miracles in the past, sent his son who talked in person to people, healed, raised the dead, etc., refuses to make anything absolutely clear. No angels, no signs, no nothing. In the New Testament, he even intervened with persons causing them to believe (Saul/Paul). If he intervened with even one person, then this test/scenario that he has created is unfair. Why doesn't he blind me on a road so I won't go to Hell?

OK, getting a little long and choppy at the end here, but I'll leave you with this. I am just a mere mortal, nothing compared to the all-everything God, but as a human father, I could not conceive of anything that my kids to do to deserve eternal punishment. The worst thing that humans can do to each other is to take a life. You could even stretch it out for an extended amount of time with torture, but at some point the victim is released through death. But this all-just God thinks eternal punishment is deserved. Does even Hitler deserve eternal punishment? Arguably the most evil human being to have ever lived, but eternity?! Maybe 1000 years? That's nothing compared to eternity.

Wow, I could write a book about this, I've done a lot of thinking and reflection. This is how I see this supposed scenario that God has put us into. I love my kids, so I build a fabulous extension onto my home as a large playroom. I fill it with arcade games, computers, books, magazines, comfy couches, etc. But, I put a large, open hole in the middle of the room that is essentially so deep; it's guaranteed to kill any kid who falls in. I talk to my kids and plead with them, "Kids, I love you, please stay away from the hole. Enjoy yourselves, but don't play around that hole!" One day one of my kids falls in and I say, "I told them about that! I begged them not to go near it! Oh why did he/she have to go near it?!" My hands are clean though because I warned them. But who put the hole there in the first place?! God could have snapped his fingers and made Lucifer disappear, but noooooooo. <<<

And so that was my introduction to Emery. I hope I said at least a couple of things to make people think. Thank you RevJim for your comments, yeah, that concept of "what do we need saving from" if no hell, was the final destruction of the foundation of my Christianity.

- David

[wondersforoyarsa]

Christians have many different ideas about hell, few of which can be even loosely reconciled with the stereotypical Christian view of God, but I think David hit an important nail on the head when he said that if there's no hell, what do we need saving from? When he said that, I thought, "Gee... no WONDER Christians hang on so tightly to hell! Without it, their entire theology falls apart!" So, to maintain the theology, at least some kind of hell - one that's worse than heaven or earth or annihilation, has to be supported. Wonders did his usual pretty good job of it from his point of view.

Well, Jim, I'll disagree with you there on both counts.

I don't think that "what do we need saving from" is a very difficult question at all. We need saving from sin - the corruption of our own hearts that turn good we would otherwise do in the world to futility or harm even with the best of intentions. We need saving from death - the fact that, despite all our efforts, we end up as a rotting corpse in the earth. And then, if you believe it, we need saving from Hell - the fact that sin and death conspire to make what would otherwise be a glorious creature into a horror to God, where goodness itself would oblige him to destroy or isolate us for the sake of the creation.

It's not artificial - posing a problem so that we can then sell you on the solution. On the contrary, the fact that we humans, for all our greatness, are deeply flawed and in need of radical redirection is evident to just about anyone.

[NH Baritone]

Thanks for Podcast 38, guys!

First a process comment:

I listened this morning, and my sense was that it's easier for the atheist viewpoint to stay focused when Emery's flying that plane solo. He's very patient in letting the Christians state their positions but then helping them narrow their discussion to the topic. And when he's speaking, Emery tends to be very succinct in presenting an atheist's viewpoint.

With two people on opposing sides both going on a bit, Podcast 38 may have benefited from a more forthright traffic cop: Someone to direct David not to go down the "meaning of life" pathway, to entice Wonders to say more about "errors" in the Baptist view of hell, and generally to help everyone get from their starting point to their destination.

That aside here's my comment on the content.

Wonders seems repeatedly astonished that people who grew up in an evangelical/fundamentalist church see that theology as the most prominent face of Christianity. And even though that's the way much of America has been exposed to the religion, he's right to raise the question: Only in the past 40-50 years has such conservative Christianity become more "mainstream" in American thought.

However, neither is Wonders' intellectual approach to Christianity anywhere close to well-accepted. When I was in seminary, the exegetical style he displays was present, but far from common. His thinking is even less iconic than the fundamentalists, and in fact, many protestants would treat his interpretations as heresy, if only for their lack of clarity.

The problem atheists encounter when addressing one face of Christianity is that the faith does not have one face. Instead, it has more in common with a multi-headed hydra than with anything approaching unity of thought, judgment, or actions. It is only at their root that Christians share common ground:

• God exists,
• God acts (intervenes), and
• God cares about what humans do.

Beyond that, you will find so much dissimilarity that you would be hard pressed to consider them the same religion if they all didn't use the same book to justify their beliefs.

So you gents were arguing over different definitions of hell, different definitions of judgment, different definitions of salvation, and different definitions of even God. When you fail to define your terms, what occurs often feels like wandering blindfolded.

[NH Baritone]

I don't think that "what do we need saving from" is a very difficult question at all. We need saving from sin - the corruption of our own hearts that turn good we would otherwise do in the world to futility or harm even with the best of intentions...

... the fact that we humans, for all our greatness, are deeply flawed and in need of radical redirection is evident to just about anyone.

If it were true that being Christian changed people, why is it that, in aggregate, Christians behave no differently from non-Christians within the same culture?

Oh, and I don't consider it at all evident that humans are "deeply flawed and in need of radical redirection." That kind of self-righteous judgment led to Nazism, Pol Pot, ethnic cleansing, the inquisition, suicide bombers, and all manner of people who decide that they are sent by God to bring about his judgment.

We need saving from death - the fact that, despite all our efforts, we end up as a rotting corpse in the earth.

Last I checked, everyone dies, and no one is immune from it. In what fashion you imagine this salvation from death will occur?

And then, if you believe it, we need saving from Hell - the fact that sin and death conspire to make what would otherwise be a glorious creature into a horror to God, where goodness itself would oblige him to destroy or isolate us for the sake of the creation.

You still haven't said who you believe God sends there ... which I find a rather large gap in your statements.

[darkumbra]

I've been getting far too pissy and irritable lately with the atheists here

[Emery]

Thanks for the observations, Rev. I'll put them to good use in the next show, I think it could use some editing, due mainly to my ramblings.

I think David did a great job this show, he was concise and brought up good points. I also think it was a good show for Christians who are on the fence--listening to Dave and Wonders' exchange would have been a great comfort to me in those scary, early days when I first realized I could no longer stay a Christian.

So thanks again to David and Wonders, hope to talk again soon.

[spongebob]

I don't think that "what do we need saving from" is a very difficult question at all. We need saving from sin - the corruption of our own hearts that turn good we would otherwise do in the world to futility or harm even with the best of intentions. We need saving from death - the fact that, despite all our efforts, we end up as a rotting corpse in the earth. And then, if you believe it, we need saving from Hell - the fact that sin and death conspire to make what would otherwise be a glorious creature into a horror to God, where goodness itself would oblige him to destroy or isolate us for the sake of the creation.

It's not artificial - posing a problem so that we can then sell you on the solution. On the contrary, the fact that we humans, for all our greatness, are deeply flawed and in need of radical redirection is evident to just about anyone.

Being raised Southern Baptist is a sure way to convince someone that Hell exists and that you don't want to go there. But if a person is not exposed to that kind of indoctrination and only told of this eternal punishment as an adult, the convincing is much more difficult. As adults we can apply critical thinking to this question. What evidence is there of Hell? Is this even a reasonable question to ask? I think it is because there isn't just one "hell", there are thousands. There may be many convincing arguments in many different cultures and holy books, but there is the same abount of physical, measurable evidence in each one---zero.

All humans do sin, or misbehave, and there are ample reasons to convince people to do otherwise outside of religion. Religion itself is not always successful in doing so. So, yes, we need saving from sin, but is the best, or only, answer "religion"? So in that respect, the "problem" is not artificial. But religion certainly does a good job of spinning the "problem" to appear that it is magical in nature and that the only cure is religion. And that I find very artificial.

[wondersforoyarsa]

I also think it was a good show for Christians who are on the fence--listening to Dave and Wonders' exchange would have been a great comfort to me in those scary, early days when I first realized I could no longer stay a Christian.

How so, Emery?

[Emery]

Well, it would have shown that I wasn't alone, that other seemingly rational people had the same doubts as I did, and didn't sprout horns and start becoming serial killers after leaving the faith. Also, it was comforting to hear you spin, thereby justifying how right I was to have my doubts

I don't know, maybe it's the whole misery loves company idea, that when others wonder about the same thing you do, you feel better.

[wondersforoyarsa]

Well, it would have shown that I wasn't alone, that other seemingly rational people had the same doubts as I did, and didn't sprout horns and start becoming serial killers after leaving the faith. Also, it was comforting to hear you spin, thereby justifying how right I was to have my doubts

Well, glad to know I make it easier for people to lose their faith. Makes me want to come on the show more often...

[Emery]

That's why unbelievers are evil, they do things like that

[spongebob]

The sad truth is that I can comtemplate life, the universe and everything all by myself, armed with books and bibles, and come to a comfortable peace with the possible nature of god. Then I hear a Christian speak and all of that gets spoiled. I'll say it again. Christians are Christianity's worst enemy.