Alright…I know that this is two religion posts in a row. I promise, next time around, it’s back to politics. In the meantime, however, I want to address a particular aspect of Christianity which has been bugging me. It seems to me, that the criteria by which admission into that eternal Club-Med, Heaven, is judged, is a little off-kilter.
Let’s take atheism off the table for the time being. Let’s just assume that Christianity, above all the many other religions of the world–past and present–is correct and the Bible is, in fact, the instruction book for life, death, and the hereafter. Most people don’t talk about the fact that, even then, one still has a decision to make. Given the teachings of Christianity, is the God of the Bible a god worthy of our love and worship?
In addressing this issue, one could easily take pot-shots at the more horrific stories of the Bible. The Old Testament, especially, is rife with examples of cruelty, misogyny, sanctioned slavery, racism, infidelity, murder, torture, etc. But let’s face it–Heaven is the prize. Just like those who follow Allah are counting the days until they get their 72 virgins, Christians plod through life and the rituals of their religion with the understanding that they will, eventually, be rewarded for their good behavior with the blessings of Heaven. So, let’s even ignore the questionable teachings of the Bible and concentrate solely on the price of admission into the cosmos’ most bitchin’ nightclub–Heaven. Consider these two potential residents of Studio 54 in the Sky…
First, we have Dave. He’s generally a good guy. He doesn’t steal. He doesn’t lie (aside from the occasional “No, honey. Those jeans most definitely do not make you look fat.). He cares about those around him and does his best to help those in genuine need. He respects his parents and rather than get jealous of those around him who have more wealth or convenience than he does, he’s happy for their good fortune and grateful for those things that he DOES have. All in all, Dave’s a good guy. He pays his taxes, he works hard, he loves his family and he tries to avoid hurting the other guy. Oh yeah, Dave’s an atheist. He’s not agnostic. He’s not buddhist. He doesn’t belong to the wrong sect of Christianity. He adamantly and willfully denies the existence of any God whatsoever based on his intellectual need for proof which, he feels, has never been met. Dave holds this point of view until he dies at age 90 in his sleep.
Now, let’s meet Jeffrey. Jeffrey lives most of his life as a real a-hole. He believes in God, but like a lot of people, he doesn’t let that belief stand in the way of doing and taking what he wants. In his twenties and thirties, Jeffrey steals cars, assaults little old ladies, forges checks–he even robbed a gas station at gun point while wearing a crucifix around his neck. In his forties, Jeffrey spends some time in prison where he sells drugs, gets in fights, and even kills another prisoner in the shower. In short, Jeffrey is a lousy Christian. Jeffrey is jealous of others and spends his life pouting that “they’re no better than I am”. He wastes 90% of his life in a squalor of crime, drugs, and hurting those around him. Then Jeffrey gets lung cancer at age 50. It progresses pretty fast and by 52, Jeffrey knows he doesn’t have much time left. He decides to reacquaint himself with God. He reads the Bible and decides that he shouldn’t have done all those terrible things he did when he was younger. It doesn’t even occur to Jeffrey that the last time he was out of bed, he smacked his wife across the face and that now, while he’s unable to move around freely, he’s really incapable of committing very much evil even if he wanted to. No, Jeffrey has come to Jesus. He’s sorry for the life he’s led. He asks Jesus for forgiveness. He says penitence, or he confesses, or whatever ritual your particular brand of Christianity demands in these circumstances. By his last days, Jeffrey has made his peace with God.
Who goes to Heaven? Every Christian that I’ve ever discussed this situation with has reluctantly agreed that Dave can’t go to heaven because he denies the existence of God. They say that one can pick the wrong flavor of Christianity, or even pick another religion all together–but one must believe in God–in some form–and fear him (or love him) in order to get the golden ticket. These same Christians also tell me that Jeffrey gets a pass. Jesus, apparently, paid upfront for all the crap that we, as a people, can get into during our lives by dying on the cross. All we have to do to repay him is worship him. Jeffrey lived a life of pain, cruelty, and debauchery, but he made the appropriate pleas for forgiveness before the eleventh-hour and he truly meant them…So Jeffrey’s cool. Jeffrey goes to Heaven.
My question to the Christians out there is–Even if we believe with certainty in the existence of God as described in the Bible, how do you justify the love, respect, and obedience you pay to him if he would choose opportunistic worship to HIM, over a lifetime of compassion and good works as a benchmark for everlasting bliss? Doesn’t a god that would value the petty, small-minded devotion of a thief and wife-beater over that of an objectively moral and good-hearted member of the human race strike you as a God that has more in common with Kim Jong-Il than the image of Jesus Christ we have all grown up with? Why should blind devotion to “The Leader” outweigh the behavior of someone who, by all accounts, lives the life of a “good Christian”–just without all the knee-bound devotionals and prostrate declarations of belief?
I would argue that Christians really don’t need to agree with atheists in order to toss their Bibles out with the Wednesday recycling. They only need to READ those bibles and decide with a critical mind if Yahweh is really a god worth devoting their lives to. Of course, if you don’t, he’ll send you to Hell–just like Stalin sent his dissenters to the gulags.
Gault's Gulch 
You’ve presented a distorted caricature of the Bible rather than accurately representing what it says and teaches. Although I don’t argue that you have good reason for your position given what you observe around you, I hold strongly that your description of Christianity is just a strawman. I know it will seem like a cop out, but I’ll refer you to 1 Corinthians 1:18:
In comparison to God’s holiness, both Dave and Jeffery are wicked; although Dave is slightly less so. Without the blood of Jesus there is no remission of sins. I don’t believe that either Dave or Jeffery does the choosing – God does (and much is said in the Bible to support this). I don’t fault you for not understanding.
Comment by Warren — April 17, 2010 @ 5:05 pm |
“You’ve presented a distorted caricature of the Bible rather than accurately representing what it says and teaches.”
I’m sorry, we must be reading different bibles then. Is it not true that someone can live a life of sin and, if they repent in time, they will be welcomed into heaven with open arms (Luke 23:43)? Is it not true that Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:16)?
Ah, but both men are sinners, and to God it doesn’t matter if you lied to your wife about whether her butt looks big in that dress or whether you bludgeoned her to death for not being thin enough. All that matters is that you should accept him as your saviour before you die. Or have I got it wrong?
I imagine it’s possible you’ll say: “Yes, you’ve got it wrong,” and launch into an explanation of how the bible should be interpreted – an explanation which will differ in several ways from the way the church down the road interprets it, or the church in the neighbouring state, or the church in that other country. But by all means, do explain to me why you say the above post is a caricature.
Comment by Anida Adler — April 18, 2010 @ 2:09 am |
Anida, I appreciate the questions. I’m sure I’m reading the same Bible as you; and Jesus is the way the truth and the life. The central message and major themes of God’s Word are simple to the one who’s eyes have been opened and who is guided by the Holy Spirit (although there are also fathomless depths and mysteries that the human mind will never comphrehend). To the one in whom God has not worked faith, it is foolishness; although, as all men (and women) are created in the image of God, all have some capacity to recognize the truth – even if they reject it (Romans 1:18-23).
Because of the disobedience of our first parents (Adam and Eve), we are all born in sin. There is nothing we can do to justify ourselves before God and all of our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). We set up our own standards for right and wrong (standards that inevitably share some commonality with God’s law due to our being made in the image of God), but they are a distortion of God’s standards. God may not care if I tell a fib when I compliment my wife; I don’t know. His Word, however, does tell me how He views creatures who reject the creator and, in their pride and vanity, think that they do not need Him and that they are, capable, in their own wisdom, of judging what is right and wrong. I know what the Bible says about idolatry; the idolatry revealed when people make other things – however good they may be in their own right – before God. And, in the event that I think I’m managing to be a decent person without God’s help, I just need to turn to Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 where he said (among many other things):
Jesus’ harshest words were almost always aimed at the religious leaders of the day who strived the hardest to satisfy the law; who appeared most righteous in the eyes of those around them. There outward actions did not matter to Jesus – He saw into their hearts and minds and knew the wickedness that lay therein. I’m sure he would have had much more time and sympathy for aetheists (although there probably weren’t many at the time).
“Accepting Jesus”, although a necessary step for salvation, does not, in and of itself, save anyone. It first took the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He who knew no sin had to die in the place of the sinner and take the punishment deserved by that sinner. Without the death and resurrection of Jesus there ise no forgiveness of sins. To the unbeliever this may seem petty, but, as John Newton put it so well:
These words were true when they were written, and they are true today – even though many distortions have crept into modern North American evangelicalism that place emphasis in different places. It’s all about grace.
I wouldn’t say you’ve got it all wrong, but you are repeating deep and timeless truths without understanding them. I suspect that you also have a much higher view of man – and his ability to be righteous in his own strength – than is true. The Christian church has always rejected as heresy the idea that man has any inate goodness or any ability, based on his own merit, to justify himself before God. The idea that there is absolutely nothing we can do to save ourselves – that it is entirely a work of God – goes against the grain of unregenerate human nature. This is where Gault has it wrong. God does not “value the petty, small-minded devotion of a thief and wife-beater over that of an objectively moral and good-hearted member of the human race . . .”. God values the righteousness of Jesus whose sacrifice was sufficient to cover all sin – even the sin of someone who rejects God’s Word and believes they can set their own standard for what is “objectively moral.”
I enjoy these sorts of conversations, but I will apologize now that I will soon drop off the scene. I’m heading off on a work trip early tomorrow morning and will be off line for several days.
Comment by Warren — April 18, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Warren,
I know you’re out of town, so it may be a while before you read this…
It seems to me, that the issue isn’t one of fundamental misunderstanding, but one of rephrasing with “spin”.
If I understand your position correctly, since “sin” is a crime of thought as well as a crime of deed, and since EVERY human being is innately wicked, then there is no substantial difference between Dave and Jeffrey in the eyes of God. The only difference is that Jeffery has asked for forgiveness for his wickedness while Dave hasn’t. I’m sorry, Warren, but I don’t see any significant difference between what I said and your depiction of the scenario other than the bias of viewpoint. The bottom line is that an atheist can never go to heaven under the rules of your religion–no matter how good or bad he acts while alive. The converse of that scenario is that a “believer” can go to heaven NO MATTER how bad he acts while alive if he says the right prayers, makes the right sacrifices, asks for forgiveness in the right way, or some ritualistic variation thereof–with the caveat that he has to truly mean it.
I realize that, in God’s eyes, we’re all sinners of equal wickedness. I, however, think it is important to concern ourselves with the practical realities of THIS existence–and here on Earth, Dave is a pretty good guy and Jeffrey is a scumbag. I’m sorry, but even if there is a philosophical justification for the viewpoint, I can’t rationalize looking to God as a teacher of morality if his own ethics would allow any scenario where Jeffrey is rewarded while Dave is punished.
Comment by John Gault — April 19, 2010 @ 7:54 am |
John, I just hit the hotel and am checking on a few things on the computer in the lobby (hey – you’re important enough for me to check in on). I was reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s The Cost of Discipleship on the flight (Bonhoeffer was a Lutheran pastor and theologian imprisoned and ultimately executed for his faith under the Nazi regime. I think he would agree that you “get” the concept at a superficial level, but totally miss it at a deeper level. The idea that a believer can be saved – no matter how bad he acts – is anathema to the concept of discipleship. As Bonhoeffer would say, without faith there can’t be obedience and without obedience there can’t be faith. Both must be held at the same time. Cheers.
Comment by Warren — April 19, 2010 @ 4:08 pm |
Warren,
I fully realize that the way I have restated the Christian “road to heaven” is far from the way in which most theologists or members of clergy would describe it. The fact is, however, that there is nothing about my description that contradicts the tradtional views of Christianity on a purely technical, logistical base. Consider it an example of “The Law of Unintended Consequences”. Just like in economics or politics, if one makes a regulation, that regulation may have unintended consequences. I know that the concept of “salvation through Christ alone” is not set up to allow murderers and rapists into Heaven as long as they repent on their deathbeds. I realize that to describe it in those terms is both heretical and uncomfortable to many devout Christians. The fact remains, however, that when practically applied, the tenets of Christian law DO allow murderers and rapists to get into heaven if they “think the right thoughts” and make the right gestures before their ticket gets punched. Those “loopholes into Heaven” are closed to the atheist. How, then, does one justify devotion to a God that would allow such loopholes to exist?
Comment by John Gault — April 21, 2010 @ 10:03 am |
Let’s put an end to the whole matter: Hitler went to heaven. Why? There’s no other place for him to go.
As for the Bible: You can only see what you can see. Much is hidden because it’s outside of the visual range of the viewer, just as a microscope is needed to view microbes, and a telescope to view up close certain heavenly bodies.
The fault is not with the Bible, but with readers, that they see so little of what is there.
Comment by LightWorker — April 22, 2010 @ 2:22 am |
In #4 John said:
Wrong. Repentent, forgiven and redeemed murderers and rapists will be saved. So will repentent, forgiven and redeemed atheists (along with all other kinds of sinners). These qualifiers may not be important to you, but it is rather disingenuous to ignore them given the premise of your argument. I would argue that they are essential to a correct understanding of Christianity.
As I’ve reflected a little more on your original post (which I admit I didn’t read as carefully as I should have), I realized that you introduced a false premise right up front. You start by saying, “Let’s just assume that Christianity, above all the many other religions of the world–past and present–is correct and the Bible is, in fact, the instruction book for life, death, and the hereafter.”, but then proceed to slip in a moral system that is of your own creation; one that does not reflect the teaching contained in God’s Word. Rather than examining the Decalogue (10 Commandments) and Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, you expect the reader to simply assume that the Bible teaches that a sin such as murder is much worse than pride or vanity or idolatry or unbelief. Because you fail to argue from your premise, your post is really just another attack on Christianity from the outside. Same old, same old – nothing creative.
The 10 Commandments are often thought of as being divided into two main components: commandments that deal with man’s relationship to other men (e.g., murder, adultery, stealing, honouring parents, etc.), and commandments that deal with man’s relationship to God (idolatry, keeping the sabbath, not taking the Lord’s name in vain, etc.). Your post focuses on the first component and is written as though the second component doesn’t exist or isn’t relavent. This is fine if you are arguing against Christianity from the outside, but you claim to be arguing from the position that the Bible is correct – and are attempting to deconstruct Christianity from the inside. This does not compute. Maybe you could try again?
Did Jesus view seriously the sin of unbelief? Absolutely; I could take you to many, many places in the Scriptures that speak to this, but I’ll leave you with the story of the rich man and Lazarus from Luke 16:
Comment by Warren — April 22, 2010 @ 3:59 pm |
Warren,
I assure you that I am not trying to argue from a false premise or sidestep any issues that you might bring up. I just read your last comment FIVE TIMES to try and figure out what fault you are accusing me of and I can’t, for the life of me, pin it down. Let me try a couple of restatements and you tell me if I haven’t cleared up some of the confusion.
Repentant, forgiven, and redeemed murderers go to heaven. So do repentant, forgiven, redeemed atheists. O.K…correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to be “redeemed”, doesn’t one have to believe in Jesus? If so, then my original scenario holds true. A murderer can repent, ask for forgiveness, and turn his life over to Christ and he will go to heaven. An atheist can only achieve the same end if he renounces his atheism and embraces Jesus–regardless of the life he lives and the harm he does to others. An atheist can not be redeemed–unless he gives himself to Christ–and therefore ceases to be an atheist. You seem to want very badly to wriggle out of this, but I’m afraid I can’t in good conscience let you.
I think you actually put a light on the issue I have in the second half of your most recent reply. There are two classes of sin. Sins against man and sins against God. Christianity views all sin as equally wicked (I think), and so a murderer or a rapist is just as bad in the eyes of God as an atheist, an idol worshipper, or someone who works on Sunday. I understand all of this better than I think you give me credit for. What I’m trying to say is that it isn’t right. If any given religion teaches that “thought crimes” against an all-powerful deity who can not be harmed by me are just as reprehensible as physical crimes against another person then that is not a religion I would want to be a part of–even if every single word of that religion were proven to be indisputably true.
I don’t, generally, like to be so crude, but it seems that bald-faced blasphemy is the only way I’m going to get my point across here. Simply put–I don’t believe that God exists–but even if he did or if you convinced me that he does, I don’t think I would like him very much and I don’t think that what he teaches in the Bible is a very good ethical code to live one’s life by. As a teacher of morality, God leaves a lot to be desired.
Comment by John Gault — April 22, 2010 @ 4:34 pm |
John, I think we’re getting somewhere. You think it is foolish to believe that a sin against God is in the same category as a physical crime against another person. Fair enough. I’m just saying that you can’t hold that view while claiming to argue from the assumption that “the Bible is, in fact, the instruction book for life, death, and the hereafter.” The two positions are in opposition. Thus my claim that you are really presenting a typical argument against Christianity from the outside.
I don’t know how (or even if) God priortizes sins. I do know that I cannot justify myself through my own efforts and good works. I also know that, as a child of God, and disciple of Christ, I am called to share in Christ’s death and to die to myself. If I fail to love my neighbour as myself, I am fail as a disciple.
I hope you’ll do a political post soon. As a Canadian living an working in the US, I often find my views significantly at odds with those around me – be they Christian or atheist.
Comment by Warren — April 22, 2010 @ 5:40 pm |
I guess that should be failing as a disciple. Sorry.
Comment by Warren — April 22, 2010 @ 5:42 pm |
wow amazing stuff man.
Comment by limewire — April 30, 2010 @ 2:13 am |
John, I was just listening to a podcast in which, among other things, four theologians were discussing general (or natural) versus specific revelation (since you say you have a reasonably good understanding of Christian concepts, I won’t explain these terms). There was a passing reference to atheists and the question was asked whether there was such a thing as a “natural atheist”? The comment was then made that what one typically hears is: (1) “there is no god”; and (2) “I hate him”.
I must admit that this post came to mind.
Comment by Warren — May 2, 2010 @ 4:17 pm |
The reason why we all struggle with the idea you described in your illustration with Dave & Jeffrey is because we don’t really understand infinite goodness. God is infinite good,infinite holiness, infinite purity. When anyone ignores God, he is saying that God’s goodness and holiness is irrelevant. The greatest sin both people in your illustration have done is the same sin that we are all guilty of: Telling God we don’t need Him by ignoring Him. To hold Dave as significantly better than Jeffrey is to not fully grasp the huge, monumental significance of thinking and acting like we can be good on our own, while ignoring the one source of ultimate goodness and purity. While the other differences between these two characters are real, the differences pale in comparison to the most significant sin they both committed. Only the one who repented of this sin is accepted by a pure and holy God.
It’s like if I’m in restaurant and order a nice meal, and the waiter brings two plates of mud. It is not legitimate to say to the waiter, “I’m not going to eat this one because it has a hair in it.”
Comment by humblesmith — May 31, 2010 @ 12:15 pm |
Thank you, humblesmith, for explaining the problem with Christianity better than I ever could…
Remember, we are presupposing for the purposes of this discussion the existence and reality of a Christian God. In reality, I have no such presupposition, but I would contend that even if God were real, he is a terrible object of worship and an even lousier moral teacher. Your explanation illustrates that perfectly.
The Christian God is a God of guilt. We are all a “plate of mud”. We are all born with the stain of original sin upon our souls–a guilty verdict for a crime we didn’t commit. You were exactly right in your point that–in the eyes of God–Jeffrey and Dave are both guilty of the WORST sin–ignoring God. Jeffrey’s murder and violence are but a hair on the plate of mud. The necessary correllary of this is that God values our worship of him far more than he values our respect of one another or our actions toward our fellow man. If he were real, I would run screaming from any God that thought my inattention to HIM were more important than acts of murder or theft. Sounds more like a petty egomaniac than a being of infinite goodness, holiness, and purity.
Comment by John Gault — May 31, 2010 @ 12:33 pm |
I would maintain that the existence of God is somewhat reasonable. At the very least, you are on logically equal ground in presuming that God doesn’t exist.
Your position is valid, but only if 1) your presumption of God not existing is true, and 2 if we assume God is truly not infinitely holy and pure. If He is, the the situation you described with Dave and Jeffrey is perfectly normal and moral. The fact is that none of us are perfectly sinless, and can’t blame Adam for our guilt.
Guilt is only illegitimate if the crime isn’t committed. If God is clean, and we are dirty, then He’s not a “God of guilt” for there’s no guilt within God……..the guilt lies with us.
Comment by humblesmith — June 12, 2010 @ 4:34 pm |
John, I have to say you are making some very good points here. I can also tell that your exposure is primarily to modern, western, Protestant, American, Evangelical Christianity. It’s actually a very small subset of Christianity which can sound like it is based much on law and loopholes.
I recall an early leader of the Church, Justin Martyr writing around 150 AD, referring to the great Greek philosophers as “Christians” because they “lived according to reason.” “Reason” is a good translation for “Logos” which is Christ, and this is the connection he was making. He made the point that they knew Christ, without knowing the details. Christians usually recognize one can know Christ in the head without knowing Him in the heart. It has been recognized by many, since the earliest days, that some might also know Him in the heart without knowing Him in the head.
Comment by Ed Smith — March 14, 2011 @ 12:58 pm |