Board index ‹ God

[Throwaway]

My grandfather and I got in an argument about god being forgiving. After him reading us a verse about how god is an understanding god I asked, "if a person who is born into a tribe or group of people who have no contact with other human beings besides that of their community, how can they know that the Christian god exists? Will they be punished for not being a believer?" He responded in telling me that they will be as they should be able to look at nature and decide that there is a god. I brought up that different cultures have different explanation for things such as spirits and gods besides the Christian one. However he was adamant that unless you have faith in the Christian god you will be punished. Is this true? To me it sounds unfair.

[jimwalton]

Romans 5.13 says, "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." In other words, people cannot be held accountable for what they could not possibly have known. They won't be condemned for not worshipping a God they know nothing about. But Romans 1.20 tells us that even nature lets people know some things about God: the orderliness, beauty, purpose, cause and effect, regularity, etc., gives even people who don't know anything about the Bible some knowledge of God. This Rom. 1.20 lets us know that they will be held accountable for what they do know. Theologians talk about in terms of "common revelation" (what everybody can see and have a knowledge of [Nature: things such as order, uniformity, purpose, function, cause and effect, the validity of sense perception, beauty, reason, personality, knowledge, the benefits of moral responsibility, will, and love; as well as a conscience inside of them]) and "special revelation" (the knowledge of things in particular, such as Jesus). Those are different accountability standards, and the Bible teaches that God is just and will be fair with people, considering what they knew and what they did with it. So it's not as unfair as the conclusion you jump to.

Based on Romans 5.13, I think it's fair to say that people who were born into a tribe or group of people who have no contact with others—like those who lives in Asia, or on Papua New Guinea, or South Africa, or Alaska—will not be judged on whether they believed in Christ or not. That doesn't make any sense. They will be judged fairly given their own motivations and actions. People will be judged according to the information they had, what they did with it, and their motives behind it. Every judgment will be fair based on what information people had, what they knew, what their motives were, and how they behaved given what they had access to. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair. So if someone hasn't heard of Christianity, they can't be held accountable for Christianity. But they will be held accountable for what they do know. As C.S. Lewis said, "Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and have been able to believe in him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself. ... If you want to help those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more work. ..."

[TrakeM]

The conclusion is clear. Don't tell anyone anything about any god. The best thing to do is to bury christianity as quickly as possible. The better we bury it, the more people will go to heaven. After all, if you witness to someone and they don't believe you then they go to hell (because that makes a lot of sense from a moral perspective?!??). However, if they aren't told then they'll just be judged by the conscience or some more reasonable standard where by far more people will go to heaven. The moral thing to do is to bury christianity as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[jimwalton]

Your solution misses the point entirely. The point is not to get to heaven, but to have a relationship with God. As I mentioned, everyone will get what they deserve, so people who know nothing about the gospel and perhaps only get to heaven because of their conscience will have a very different experience there than others who knew and responded. They are missing out on what it is really all about: the relationship. The best way to give people the best experience possible is for them to know about Jesus, know God, turn their lives over to Him, and to respond to Him willfully. That is the experience we want for everyone.

Suppose you're in love with this woman, or man. If you never get to meet him or her, then maybe your life gets to be one of being able to see them every day. But it would be far better if you got to meet them, spend time, grow in your love, and then get married and live together in love for the rest of your life! The second is the goal. The first is pretty weak by comparison.

As I mentioned, it's possibly that people who haven't heard, or even some who have rejected mildly out of ignorance will have continuing opportunities to turn to God, but if they do, their experience in heaven may be noticeably different from other who knew. The best strategy is to tell as many people as possible for maximize their opportunity for what really counts: a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, those who have heard the truth, who know about God, and who have willfully rejected him will suffer the most agony from their separation from Him. Those are the people who will learn the full import of separation from God.

[TrakeM]

Seriously, you think someone deserves to be tortured forever because they didn't believe in your religion? You think that believing in your religion is the most moral thing ever and not believing in it is evil? That's not a very defensible position on what morality is. Consider that your sense of morality also includes the idea that at one point in time it was morally right to murder someone because they said "let us serve other gods". I'm sorry, but that's never been right. The fact that it was in a theocracy commanded by your god makes it only all the more damning to the idea that your god is a moral god.

[jimwalton]

> Seriously, you think someone deserves to be tortured forever because they didn't believe in your religion?

No I don't. There are many theories from thinking Christians that possibly hell is not eternal for everyone there, but there may be future opportunities for some to be reconciled to God after appropriate punishment and as they continue to make spiritual choices. Hell is a difficult doctrine to sort out. Without a doubt there are verses that talk about eternal punishment, but they don't necessarily include all of those who are separated from God. There are verses that talk about God reconciling all things to himself (Rom. 11.15; 2 Cor. 5.19; Col. 1.20), and so some theologians think that God will continue his work of reconciliation even into eternity, such that those who "serve their time" will at a later date be reconciled with God ("reconciliationism"). There is another position called "semi-restorationism" where, after appropriate punishment, those who desire a relationship with God will be partially restored, and those who do not, even after punishment, will opt to remain separated. So hell is eternal, but not necessarily eternal for everyone. While the Bible speaks about eternity, possibly only those who stay eternally defiant will be eternally punished. Some even believe in annihilation. It's hard to know.

The Bible also teaches the principle of reasonable accountability. According to Romans 5.13, people are not held accountable for what they had no possibility of knowing or knowing about. In Deuteronomy 1.39, the children who were too young to make a realistic decision are not judged, but are shown mercy; their level of accountability was directly related to their moral awareness. Isa. 7.15-16 teaches the same thing: God deals differently with people based on their knowledge. So we're getting a sense of the fairness of God, and that he takes many things into consideration as he makes his perfect decisions: opportunities, intellect, motives, behavior, and environment. Any judge worth his salt gives weight to these things. People will be judged on the basis of what they know and what they did with it.

We know there are degrees of punishment in hell; it's not "One Fire Fits All." People can be punished worse or less based on their lives and what they deserve. There are also many theories from thinking Christians that possibly hell is not eternal for everyone there, but there may be future opportunities for some to be reconciled to God after appropriate punishment and as they continue to make spiritual choices.

I happen to be convinced hell is not literally fire, but the agony of true separation from God. I say that because fire doesn't have degrees of punishment, but hell does. Degrees of separation makes more sense to me than degrees of being burned. I believe hell is degrees of punishment, based on the sin (though not levels of hell, as in Dante. Ironically, though, even Dante said hell is an endless, hopeless conversation with oneself). Here's my proof:

Mt. 11.22-24 – "more tolerable"
Mt. 23.14 – "greater condemnation"
Rev. 20.13 – "each in proportion to his works"
Lk. 10.12 – "it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town"
Lk. 12.47-48 – beaten with few blows or more blows

It's apparent to me that you misunderstand hell. Hell is not where God throws people he doesn't love anymore. Hell is where people choose to go who don't want anything to do with a relationship with God. I can say with confidence that God doesn't want anyone to go to hell. Hell was not made for people; heaven was made for people. You misunderstand if you think that God somehow stops loving people, even though at one time they were his beloved children, and he sends them to hell when they no longer please him. God opens the doors of heaven and invites everyone in, but many people simply refuse to come, despite his promises of blessing, his intent to reward, his desire for relationship, and his personal sacrifice to make it free for anyone to come. Hell (separation from God) is the only other choice for people who don't wish to be united with God.

Look at it this way: God is life. If you choose against him, you choose death. It's not like God is being cruel. You freely chose not to have anything to do with life, and so you chose death. That's your prerogative, but don't blame God. To choose to be with God is to choose life, love, fellowship, peace, and joy. To choose not to align with God you automatically choose all the antitheses: death, isolation, and torment. It's not like the church is forcing you to love him or burn. It's just that if you choose against God, you choose death, isolation and torment, what the Bible calls hell. Don't blame God for that.

My bottom line is this: Those who turn away from God will be separated from the life of God. Though we can't be sure about the form or duration of that separation, this we can be sure of: it will be a horrible experience, and God will be fair about the form and duration of it. If you reject God, you take your chances.

[TrakeM]

You quote the bible a lot, but the bible isn't evidence. On top of this, your bible doesn't even seem to have a clue as to how hell is supposed to work.

Whether eternal or not, torturing someone for not believing in your god is not moral.

I don't believe in god. I'm not in pain due to that. My not having a relationship with your god is not hurting me in the least. Yet, not having a relationship with your god is supposed to be painful suddenly when I die? Why should I believe that? It seems to me that your claims here are based on your personal experience of the wondrous works of god in your life. People have relationships with so many deities and proclaim the wondrous works of various different deities in their lives. I can assure you, you're not the only one with a god that claims that their relationship with their god has done wondrous works in their life. The same is said by many believers of many different religions and therefore if it's evidence for your religion it's evidence for theirs too.

[jimwalton]

> Whether eternal or not, torturing someone for not believing in your god is not moral.

First of all, what science do you have that proves this to be true? Secondly, what is the moral standard from which this dictum comes? Third, what is the source of that moral standard?

[TrakeM]

Neither you nor I have objective morality. You claim you do because you believe in a god but you can't objectively show that your god exists. Until such time as you can objectively show that your god exists, your claim to objective morality is just a claim without basis.

Morality isn't found in science because we made it up. It isn't objective. Just because a lot of people believe in something doesn't make it objective. It is objectively true that murdering babies would be bad for the continued survival of the species and natural selection probably favors those species which wouldn't kill their own children. After all, if you do, then your species dies out and isn't there in the future.

My basis for morality is that I care about my fellow human beings. Is it subjective? Sure. But it's still a basis for morality. Your morality isn't objective either as you have yet to objectively show your god is real.

[jimwalton]

Alright, we are coming to another impasse. I gave you many evidences for the existence of God, and you rejected them. But you offer no rebuttal, no competing arguments to substantiate what you believe. That's your prerogative, and shows there's quite a different way of thinking between you and I. Same with morality. You keep challenging me to prove things by science, as if things that are not provable by science are not true. And yet when I challenge you to do the same, there is no substantiation of what you perceive to be true. Again, that's your prerogative, but I think we're at an impasse.

If morality is just how you define "care for human beings," what happens when we get to a guy like Adolf Hitler who, using social evolution as a foundation, deemed "care for human beings" to mean the establishment of a superior Arian race and the destruction of millions of "inferior" humans? If each person is allowed to create their own definition of "care for human beings," viz. "morality," then "good" and "bad" really have no definitions and are meaningless terms. But since you don't recognize the logic of my arguments for the existence of God, all of this is sort of moot. I'm not sure that continuing the conversation is a worthwhile endeavor at this point.