Ep. 86: Where's the Justice?

[Emery]

So does the Christian afterlife really make it all better? Or is it far worse on balance, where all the happy saved people are more than counterbalanced by those suffering in hell?

More importantly, however, is the debut of our Stryper video transfer to Youtube, approved by none less than Stypertube itself! Post a comment on the Youtube page and tell the Stryper boys how much they need to come on our show.

[mitchellmckain]

So does the Christian afterlife really make it all better? Or is it far worse on balance, where all the happy saved people are more than counterbalanced by those suffering in hell?

This is a lot like the question of God's existence, where it cannot be separated from the question of What is God? Just because I cannot find any value in a belief in the God that is portrayed by the most naive and irrational of Christians, does not mean that one cannot find in Christianity or the Bible a God that is very much worth believing in.

Likewise it is silly to presume what "the Christian afterlife" refers to before you ask the above question. Sounds to me like little more than a gimick of atheist rhetoric so that you can make whatever the most naive and irrational of Christians describes your strawman that is easy to burn. But what does that accomplish but a lot of hot air?

To really take Scott's argument seriously you also have to take seriously the Christian belief that justice WILL be served, whether they understand how or not. It is quite clear that justice is not served in the physical life that we see. Thus there is no arguing that if you believe that justice will be served somehow in the afterlife, then that IS an advantage of that belief.

The far more effective atheist argument has instead been to challenge the effect of such a belief on our search for justice in this life. Far too often, in the past, justice in the afterlife has been an excuse for not making that much effort for justice in this life. And yet the truth is also that Christians have fought for justice and so it is not as if this otherworldly justice precludes the effort for justice in this world. And that just brings us back to the difference between what CAN be found in Christianity if the effort is made as opposed to what the most naive and irrational of Christians have done.

When you read the Bible you DO NOT see any such message that justice in this world is unimportant but quite the opposite. Rather what you see over and over again is nothing but disgust by God at the indifference for the plight of others by those who claim to love Him.

[mitchellmckain]

More importantly, however, is the debut of our Stryper video transfer to Youtube, approved by none less than Stypertube itself! Post a comment on the Youtube page and tell the Stryper boys how much they need to come on our show.

Well now I have listened to the podcast and watched the Stryper video.

You know in all the podcast there is one critical question that I do not see addressed, and that is what is justice? Is it the same thing as this childrens idea of fairness that every child in the family gets an equal share of the goodies? Do we, in fact, all have to be exactly the same for there to be any justice? I cannot understand how anyone can even contemplate that question without a feeling of utter horror. I think that justice is about seeing the natural and logical consequences of our choices come to fruition, like when you stick your hand in a fire and you get burned. Well many have this feeling that certain things are wrong to do, and I think justice is when we find out exactly why they are wrong.

To Emery's implied question, like Scott I say, yes this justice that the Christian worldview provides is important. The belief that our choices and actions must have consequence that cannot be escaped is absolutely central to my belief in everything in Christianity.

But to Emery's quetion about whether everything can be fixed, I reply that justice isn't about fixing things, but rather making them worthwhile. The very suggestion that Emery makes that the only way to fix things is to erase them, I think is very very wrong. To forget some miserable suffering time is NOT justice at all but just the opposite -- practically an insult. Justice is NOT about making the bad things go away, but about seeing the good triumph and overcome them, and that does not happen if they are forgotten.

To Emery's question about whether you have to be a Christian to get this justice, my answer unlike Scott, is an emphatic no, because of course I utterly reject any so called "party line" and I always have -- of that there is no question.

Emery asks the question, what if the fundie Christians are right? I would have to ask what Emery means by that? Because what I suspect he means, is what if we die and find ourselves confronted with the senario described by the fundie Christians? Well for me that is like asking what if the Nazis take over my country? Do I change what I believe because of that? NO! I fight for what I believe, no matter what happens. And so if I am confronted by Tony's big bad gunman rapist god then yeah I want nothing to do with its "heaven" and yeah I will be with the atheists in its "hell", but I will continue worshping my God in exactly the same faith that I have now. In other words, my answer is that no matter how "right" they might look in any particular circumstances, this cannot change the truth that they are wrong for all the same reasons that both the atheists and I say that they are wrong.

Emery puts forth this bizarre argument that because most people don't see in the Bible what Emery and Scott and I would call justice, that this is a reason to be suspicious of the book. This is basically the same arguement that I saw from another atheist in the forum based on this rather bizarre premise that if God really is behind the Bible then it would not be disputed, to which I responded that this is just like the creationist argument that if evolution was really true then it would not be disputed. These kind of arguments make no sense. They are all basically saying that everyone should think in the same way. WHY? Why should they? Why should everyone have the same idea of justice? Why should everyone see the same thing in the Bible? WHY SHOULD EVERYONE BE THE SAME? WHY?

I am trying to see the logical structure of this arguement, in order to dig out the hidden premise.
A) Christianity promises justice.
B) What 95% of the Christians see in Christianity is not what Emery would call justice.
C) Therefore Emery must find the promise of justice in Christianity to be suspect.

Is the hidden premise something like the following?
D)The fulfillment of the promise of justice in Christianity depends what most people understand of Christianity.

What happens if we apply this logic to science for example.
A) Science promises to discover the truth.
B) What 95% of the people see in science is not what I call truth.
C) Therefore the promise of truth in science is suspect???

I am afraid that what I find suspect here is Emery's argument.


Emery asks Scott if God created hell? My answer is, absolutely NOT! I only believe there is a hell because I can see it in the world. I see people creating it themselves. Thus I know that it is people who create hell not God.

Emery asks if even one person goes to hell then is justice served? My answer is that going to heaven or hell has absolutely nothing to do with justice. It is absolutely clear to me that in Christianity at least, heaven and hell are not reward and punishment for the good and bad things you have done. I believe that justice is something completely different that awaits in both heaven and hell, and that in both places we will have cause for thanks for every good thing we have done and cause for regret for every evil thing we did.

Emery asks how does forgiveness fit into all of this? My answer is that forgiveness is offered to everyone who wants it. But forgiveness is not about escaping the consequences of ones actions, but about whether you want a relationship with God or not. Is that not what forgiveness is always about? Whether you want a relationship with that person or not?

Next Scott seems to puzzles over why things in the Bible are the way that they are, but I must admit that I do not find them quite so puzzling. The fact that it was written so long ago does explain it to me. Mankind has changed a great deal and it seems quite obvious to me that the Bible has played a significant role in those changes, and in those changes I see all the reasons required.

Emery complains that he feels tired just listening to Scott struggle with Christianity and thinks it would be easier to just throw it all out. But I don't think this is any different from the way that the fundies have chosen to make things simple and easier for themselves by throwing science out the window. Both throw out all the good those things have to offer because they don't want to make the effort to deal with the hard parts.

Scott says no, because the gospels are way cool. But I find that answer really disappointing because while I would quite agree that gospel story is the very best thing that Christianity has to offer the world, the things that I find to be way cool in the Bible is a great deal more than just the gospels.

When Scott says that all of his doubts and questions are just in the theology and not in the practice, I want to suggest to him that perhaps he needs to absorb the philosophy of pragmatism into his theology.

I guess I have to agree with Scott that there are some fundamental differences in the athiest practical ethos, especially when I hear them trying to argue with me that there is no such thing as unselfishness, and that's when I too have to wonder if atheists really can so easily reproduce the self-sacrifice that lies right at the heart of the Christian ethos.

[ncfhou]

Just found this site & listening to this podcast brought back a question I used to struggle with a lot. If eternal justice includes punishing people by sending them to hell, doesn't this act actually punish the people who are in heaven who see their loved one in torment? I realize that this thought is based on a view of heaven and hell as presented in the Rich man and Lazarus story.

Although it is a loose connection, the conversation about a person receiving justice by having their lost child restored to them in heaven reminded me of this since there could be an instance in which one person receiving justice in the afterlife is dependent on another person receiving unjust treatment.

[mitchellmckain]

Just found this site & listening to this podcast brought back a question I used to struggle with a lot. If eternal justice includes punishing people by sending them to hell, doesn't this act actually punish the people who are in heaven who see their loved one in torment?

Yes indeed it does. This is in fact a big part of the argument for universalism. But I think that this answer has its own problems. You see, I think we can see endless wrongs done in the name one persons "compassion" for another, where some people smother others with manipulations and control to make them live life how they think they should. I believe that this could almost be called a spiritual murder, refusing to let that person live their own life. I don't believe that God does any such thing, and thus He will let us make the wrong choices and pursue things that are not worthwhile, if we insist on it. It is I think one of those no-win situations in life to which there are no solutions.

But see I do not and never have bought into this idea that heaven is a place of everlasting bliss or where there are no hardships, sorrows or regrets. These are a part of life and so the promise of eternal life must incllude these as well.

Although it is a loose connection, the conversation about a person receiving justice by having their lost child restored to them in heaven reminded me of this since there could be an instance in which one person receiving justice in the afterlife is dependent on another person receiving unjust treatment.

Why? Children are not property. They are people. We get to be a part of their life and that is all that we ever get. The kind of situation you are talking about happens in this life and when people are wise they find answers that work for everyone, especially if the child's wellfare is put first. If you really want to be a part of the child's life then you have to be a part of the lives of the others who are also a part of their life. If you treat the child like a posession then you are just cutting the child apart like the story of the two women coming to Solomon for judgement, and in that case your love for the child isn't real, and justice would keep you as far away from that child as possible.

[mikedsjr]

Just found this site & listening to this podcast brought back a question I used to struggle with a lot. If eternal justice includes punishing people by sending them to hell, doesn't this act actually punish the people who are in heaven who see their loved one in torment? I realize that this thought is based on a view of heaven and hell as presented in the Rich man and Lazarus story.

Although it is a loose connection, the conversation about a person receiving justice by having their lost child restored to them in heaven reminded me of this since there could be an instance in which one person receiving justice in the afterlife is dependent on another person receiving unjust treatment.

There is no biblical support for people in heaven seeing people in hell. The rich man and Lazarus is a parable to emphasize the deadness of Israel, not to demonstrate that someone in heaven could talk to someone in hell. Also, the Bible says in Revelations 21 that there will be no sadness nor tears in heaven. Look it up. There is no need for it, because sadness and tears, are a product of a sinful nature which heaven will have no sin part of it.

There is absolutely no support for a person having their lost child restored to them in heaven. What is just and unjust is not decided by treatment between people. Its is fully decided on your sin and your justifiable deserving hell for your sins before a Holy God.

[humanguy]

There is no biblical support for people in heaven seeing people in hell. The rich man and Lazarus is a parable to emphasize the deadness of Israel, not to demonstrate that someone in heaven could talk to someone in hell. Also, the Bible says in Revelations 21 that there will be no sadness nor tears in heaven. Look it up. There is no need for it, because sadness and tears, are a product of a sinful nature which heaven will have no sin part of it.

There is absolutely no support for a person having their lost child restored to them in heaven. What is just and unjust is not decided by treatment between people. Its is fully decided on your sin and your justifiable deserving hell for your sins before a Holy God.

Interesting. But people in heaven surely don't forget about all the people they knew on earth, those people who didn't make it to heaven, or do they?

Is there any biblical support for people who go to heaven forgetting everyone they knew on earth who ends up in hell? If so let's have a look at it.

Let's say that when my wife and I die, I go to hell and she goes to heaven (not that she would go to heaven but just for the sake of argument.) So there she is in heaven and I'm not there, so she's got to know that this means that I'm in hell. Now knowing my wife as I do she wouldn't like that at all. She'd be absolutely miserable thinking about me down there in hell. So what kind of heaven would that be for her, an eternity of feeling lousy about my own eternal agony?

Some heaven! Really, I think you need to think this through a little more. Just saying that there will be no sadness nor tears in heaven is pretty simplistic. I mean, does going to heaven cause amnesia? Does it make you not give a damn about your loved ones anymore?

[mikedsjr]

Youre asking a question based on lack of knowledge of our ultimate purpose, which is to glorify God. In heaven, our desires are to glorify God and concern for an earthly loved one who justifiably ends in hell due to their sin is not glorifying God. So no more pain and sorrow is what it says.

[humanguy]

Youre asking a question based on lack of knowledge of our ultimate purpose, which is to glorify God. In heaven, our desires are to glorify God and concern for an earthly loved one who justifiably ends in hell due to their sin is not glorifying God. So no more pain and sorrow is what it says.

Yes, yes, yes, that's "what it says," you've read it, you believe it, it's just that you haven't thought about it. But I guess you're not really supposed to think about it, are you?

[mikedsjr]

You were asking what scripture says, correct?

I get your question and why you asked it, but I would be handling scripture improperly to give an explanation about what I think about what scripture says, or shall i say to give a Scott-like answer.

[humanguy]

You were asking what scripture says, correct?

I get your question and why you asked it, but I would be handling scripture improperly to give an explanation about what I think about what scripture says, or shall i say to give a Scott-like answer.

Fair enough. Let me ask you something, you say that the bible says there will be no more pain and suffering in heaven. Is there a lot of pain and suffering in your life right now? Are you yourself experiencing pain and suffering?

[NH Baritone]

Scott, your wish for justice in an afterlife sounds almost like you expect Frank Capra to script and direct all of existence.

Pie-in-the-sky Hollywood endings are contrived and manipulative. Is that what you're suggesting that Christianity offers? Does your discomfort with reality justify your denial that (metaphorically) there really is a man, perhaps a pastor, standing behind the curtain pulling leavers to make Oz seem great, powerful, and just?

[mitchellmckain]

Scott, your wish for justice in an afterlife sounds almost like you expect Frank Capra to script and direct all of existence.

And your scoffing at human aspirations for justice sounds like the pontifications of one of his mustache twirling antagonists.

Pie-in-the-sky Hollywood endings are contrived and manipulative.

It is the nature of living things to impose their desires on reality by whatever means. Just because you choose to only impassively watch life pass you by without sticking your fingers in, doesn't mean everyone else has to choose your form of living death.

Is that what you're suggesting that Christianity offers?

Any objective observation of the whole phenomenon of a belief in an afterlife can see that justice is the dominant motivation.

Does your discomfort with reality justify your denial that (metaphorically) there really is a man, perhaps a pastor, standing behind the curtain pulling leavers to make Oz seem great, powerful, and just?

Dreams are the means by which human beings use their imagination to visualize the things they strive for. Stories are an important way in which human beings give those dreams substance and communicate them to others so that we can inspired to work together for the realization of those dreams. Faith is how we keep on fighting for those dreams when human indifference and selfishness suck us dry.

[mitchellmckain]

The ideas of heaven an hell originate in neither Christianity nor Judaism but in many other religions, some of them quite old. It is quite obvious that they are rather natural ideas for fulfilling the human desire for justice in the afterlife. Therefore in the Christian message and the gospel they are primarily part of the context rather than the content, for there can be no arguing against the fact that Christianity like Buddhism is a reaction to the flaws in a religous system, but in the case of Christianity it was in a highly syncretistic environment, where all the religious ideas of Greek philosophy, Roman polytheism and Zoastrian dualism were floating around in addition to those of Judaism. I think we can say that Christianity puts its own peculiarly Jewish twist on the ideas of heaven and hell to make them more about a relationship with God than about justice, and yet the desire for and promises of justice remain.

Thus we have this apparently contradictory message in Christianity, that on one hand says that your sins can be forgiven and that this doesn't depend on good works, and on the other hand makes it quite clear that God will render to every man according to his works (Romans 2:6) indicating that there is no escape from the consequences of what we have done. Now there is no doubt that there have been many many people who have tried to simplify different aspects of Christianity and this aspect is no exception and so we have the modern gnostic legalizers in fundamentalism who have abandoned the idea of any real justice in the afterlife by providing themselves with their own loophole by which to escape justice based on whether you capitulate to their intellectual blackmail and accept their way of thinking. It is a really horrendous legalism where it matters not what you do but only what you believe.

Thus I reject these innane simplifications by the fundies and many others to embrace both of these aspects of Christianity to say that yes the most important polarization in our destiny does indeed have to do with a relationship with God in which we are freely offered forgiveness, but the that justice remains regardless of this because whether we are with God in heaven or without Him in hell, the consequences of our actions will remain inescapable. This goes well with the medical metaphors for atonement and redemption which are favored in Eastern Orthodoxy, but is a little dissonant with judicial metaphor which tends to be emphasized to the exclusion of all others in Western Christianity. But this is not an unresolvable conflict. It just takes a closer examination of what justice really is all about.

[humanguy]

It occurs to me that if there is, in fact, a real universal cosmic court that judges how people have lived their lives then most of us have nothing to worry about. I think about all my little "crimes" and they really don't amount to anything, not really. I was pretty wild when I was a young man but who wasn't? I've done my share of stupid selfish things, I've been irresponsible and petty and mean, I've indulged in hedonistic behavior and I've done some things that are just plain wrong.

I just don't think that my little transgressions add up to much in the long run, though, I don't think anyone's do. You get older and you grow out of all your selfish and insecure grasping at life, and if from time to time you succumb to a basic human weakness then naturally you feel upset about it but it doesn't mean that you're a rotten person, it doesn't mean that you're evil.

If there is a real fundamental cosmic justice, one that determines that the worst of the worse go to a bad place and the rest go to a good place, then the vast majority of us are destined for the good place. Because if the judge, that judge being God, is everything people say he is then I can't see how he'd be all that upset with most of what people do.

I know there are those who quite savor the idea of humans who don't believe as they do being thrown into an eternal torture chamber where justice means an everlasting agony of pain and suffering, but that says more about them and their festering minds than it does about what they believe in.

The thing is that I can see all the good that is in people and, seeing that, I like them and I don't want any hurt or trouble to come their way. I want people to be happy, to live and to think freely, to follow their own paths according to each individual's inner drive to pursue his own human passion and joy and then to share that passion and joy with others. And if I can feel that way then surely God can.