http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/09/jobin-world-without-epilogue.html
WEEBLYSMACKERS SAID:
“So do you think that, in this situation, the truth should be held from Ulyana? Or do you, like me, think that the truth should be told?”
That depends on whether I’d be speaking as a Christian or an atheist.
As a Christian, I’d tell her the truth. But that’s also because, as a Christian, I can offer her hope. I can pray with her and for her. Give her a Bible to read. Point her to a good church. Ask the pastor to pay her a visit. Introduce her to some Christian friends. From a Christian standpoint, nothing is more important than preparing for the world to come–because the stakes are so high.
But from an atheistic standpoint, a hopeful illusion is better than a hopeless truth. Suppose, as an atheist, I had a 5-year-old with terminal cancer. Would I tell him the truth (as I see it)? Would I tell him he was going to die. Would I tell him that every thing he is, and was, and could have been would perish?
No. I‘d lie to him. I’d try to make him happy.
Why make him miserable in his final weeks or months of life–all for the sake of truth? My 5-year-old son means more to me than some imaginary obligation to truth.
“Likewise, with atheism, do you think that religion is a good thing irregardless of whether it is true or not? Or do you, like me, prefer to know the truth, no matter how painful it may be?”
You present Christianity and atheism as if they were symmetrical alternatives. They’re not.
No, Christianity is not a good thing regardless of whether it’s true or false.
However, atheism is a bad thing regardless of whether it’s true or false.
And, in a godless universe, why would I value truth over happiness? If there’s a conflict between truth and self-interest, I’d opt for self-interest every time. If I were an atheist, that would be the pragmatic pecking order.
In a godless world, it doesn’t matter how you lived or how you died. It only matters to you at the time you were alive.
I’d also add, from a Christian standpoint, that in a fallen world, we’re sometimes confronted with conflicting obligations. In that event, the higher obligation takes precedence.
In a fallen world, there are times when love and truth conflict. And there are situations where it’s better to spare the feelings of another.
In heaven, truth and love are conterminous. But here-below, that’s not always the case.
“Atheism isn't Job without the epilogue, life is Job without the epilogue (although, if your own life is really that terrible, I pity you). Some of us are man enough to accept that.”
Of course, the “man enough” line is a way adolescent boys gin each other for a game of chicken. That kind of empty, boastful rhetoric is a sign of cringing fear and weakness within. It’s what scared people tell themselves or tell each other to act tough and feel brave.
But from a secular perspective, man is just accidental monkey, who’s been cursed to realize his pointless existence, and the oblivion which awaits him when he dies.
However, the average atheist can’t face up to that, so he tries to glamorize his imaginary duty to cosmic truth, making that sound oh-so noble and heroic. Again, though, that’s just the fearful bravado of a teenage braggadocio.
Tough talk in the face of oblivion is supremely unconvincing. The grave is unimpressed by whether you died “manfully” or died on your knees, begging for another day of life.
"But from a secular perspective, man is just accidental monkey, who’s been cursed to realize his pointless existence, and the oblivion which awaits him when he dies."
ReplyDeleteHaving gone under the knife several times, I'd imagine that "oblivion" would be something similar to the feeling of general anesthesia. No thoughts, no awareness, nothing.
As awful as this seems to those of us who treasure being and the simple pleasures of existence, I'm not certain that the Christian (and especially the Calvinist outlook in particular) are less awful. Instead of eternal nothing, one has to hope that they will not experience eternal misery of unimagineable depths.
Only the most arrogant get through life in their "certainty" that they are among God's chosen. For any rational person, they'd have to consider seriously the possibility that God is and will be their enemy, and the enemy of those they love.
How is this "better"?
Only the most arrogant get through life in their "certainty" that they are among God's chosen.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it arrogant to believe oneself to have been chosen for salvation? Since the choice is not predicated on any quality within oneself, the allegation doesn't make sense. "Fortunate" would be a better word. "Blessed". If we were going to be colloquial, "lucky". However, while I myself am arrogant (because I'm a sinner, and arrogance is one of my sins), I don't see that I'm especially arrogant for believing that I'm saved. If I am arrogant for that, then you are arrogant for believing that you're sitting in front of a computer reading words written by a real guy called Bnonn—because that is the sort of reality that salvation has to a Christian.
For any rational person, they'd have to consider seriously the possibility that God is and will be their enemy, and the enemy of those they love.
That would be true if there were no gospel. But "since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God". That's God's promise. That's what the gospel is—it's called good news for a reason. On the upside, at least you acknowledge that "any rational person" believes in God.
As well, it is interesting that John acknowledges that any rational person understands his plight, that he should expect nothing from God but judgment for his sins.
ReplyDeleteBut then in His grace, God chose not to leave the entire human race in this pitiful state... "For God so loved the world..."
Neal, I made no statement as to whether God's judgments are just or tolerable. However, if He is indeed omnipotent, He can do whatever He likes. If it turns out that He's decided to save three or four souls in the entirety of the human race, there's not much anyone can do about it, is there?
ReplyDeleteHow does one look forward to such a thing, exactly, "deserved" or not?
So you see, believing in an afterlife doesn't remove any angst or fear, nor does it give assurance of anything "good" at all. That was my point.
But your "point" is just a caricature. You seem to think that God's omnipotence implies that he's a despot. That says a lot about you, I guess, but it doesn't actually reflect the facts about God. Both Neal and I have corrected you by pointing to the gospel.
ReplyDeleteJOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"So you see, believing in an afterlife doesn't remove any angst or fear, nor does it give assurance of anything 'good' at all. That was my point."
That may be your point, but it's quite irrelevant to my point. I didn't talk about the afterlife in general, now did I? Rather, I was far more specific about the basis of the hope:
"As a Christian, I’d tell her the truth. But that’s also because, as a Christian, I can offer her hope. I can pray with her and for her. Give her a Bible to read. Point her to a good church. Ask the pastor to pay her a visit. Introduce her to some Christian friends."
And I said "hope," not "assurance." The Gospel holds out hope for sinners. But the Gospel doesn't rise to the level of assurance unless the sinner receives the Gospel.
Likewise, a cure for cancer holds out hope for patients. But unless the patient undergoes the therapy, there's no assurance of healing.
That, however, is quite different than if no cure were available.
You come to all these discussions with a preconceived agenda, and you use a post like this as a pretext to plug your agenda regardless of what I actually said.
I'd also add that your animus towards the Christian faith is utterly irrational. You can't beat something with nothing. Atheism is a losing proposition. Whatever you think of Christianity, it's not as if atheism offers you something wonderful Christianity does not, or that Christianity denies you something wonderful which atheism offers.
Atheism is a devil's pact for nothing in return. You don't get your three wishes.
"So you see, believing in an afterlife doesn't remove any angst or fear, nor does it give assurance of anything 'good' at all. That was my point."
ReplyDeleteHow, exactly, would one who has no hope for eternity, be able to imagine what it might be like to have hope.
Knowing I am saved is about trusting that God means what he says, not believing that I'm good enough to make God happy.
In fact, knowing that there is an afterlife, and knowing who controls it, removes more angst and fear than anything else in my experience.
"The Gospel holds out hope for sinners."
ReplyDeleteSome sinners or all sinners? If some, how does one go about determining whether one's hope is misplaced or not?
"I'd also add that your animus towards the Christian faith is utterly irrational."
I don't bear ill-will towards all variants of Christianity. Some of it I heartily endorse, even monetarily.
"You can't beat something with nothing"
Really? Offer someone the choice between eternal "nothingness" and eternal punishment and tell me which one they choose. You always look at this through your own prism, because you believe yourself among the chosen. Try looking at it through someone else's perspective.
Are you just angry because you aren't saved, John? But then, why not ask God for forgiveness and trust in Christ to be saved? Surely you aren't ignorant of the conditions for salvation.
ReplyDelete"Some sinners or all sinners? If some, how does one go about determining whether one's hope is misplaced or not?"
ReplyDeleteSome, surely. But why worry about everyone else? What say you of Christ?
"Offer someone the choice between eternal "nothingness" and eternal punishment and tell me which one they choose."
But then again, it's not as if what a man wishes to be true actually is true. The "choice" above reduces to the choice between eternal punishment and eternal punishment. That's not much of a choice. But then again, there is the gospel.
John said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not certain that the Christian (and especially the Calvinist outlook in particular) are less awful. Instead of eternal nothing, one has to hope that they will not experience eternal misery of unimagineable depths.
If you've been exposed to the gospel, and are comparing Christianity with atheism, then your options (from the human perspective, regardless of predestination) are to accept or reject the gospel. In which case, there are 3 possible destinies. 1. Heaven, 2. Hell, or 3. Oblivion.
John said:
For any rational person, they'd have to consider seriously the possibility that God is and will be their enemy, and the enemy of those they love.
I understand your concern. Here's the way I deal with that dilemma. I'm a Calvinist who believes that all humans, being born with original sin and (if you live long enough) commiting their own sins, are deserving of hell. The mentally handicapped and those dying in infancy, while deserving of hell, have as their lot an extenuating (if that's the right word to use) circumstance. Various Calvinists have argued for why at least some (if not all) those in such a situation might be saved, so I won't go into that issue here.
Then there are those who never hear the Christian Gospel. I believe that God's normative way of saving sinners is through their hearing and reception of the Gospel. I say "normative", since (for example) even some Calvinists agree (with me) that some infants might be saved by the sovereign and gracious unilateral application of Christ's benefits to them even apart from their faith here on earth. But if God can sovereignly save such, then it seems (at least to me) that God could possibly do the same for those who have never heard the Gospel. Whether God in fact does so, we aren't given any clear indication from Scripture. So I leave them to the God who is both sovereignly just/righteous AND wonderously merciful. Knowing, that 1. if *some* are saved, it's by God's unconditional grace. 2. if *some* or *all* are lost, it's due to God's justice (in which case I have no room for complaint).
Then there are those who have heard and been exposed to the Gospel but rejected it. If they went to hell, they do so because of 1. original sin, 2. their own regular sins, 3. their sin of rejecting God's offered salvation in Christ. If rejectors of the Gospel go to hell, it's mere (and appropriate) justice. However, there are anecdotal Christian stories of Near Death Experiences (NDEs) where a non-Christian dies, goes to hell (temporarily), then is saved by Christ on "account of" (not on the "basis of") the prayers of believing family members for that person (cf. Job's prayers and sacrifices for his children). Whether these contemporary stories are true in the sense of them being real experiences (as opposed to made up stories) based on what Christ actually did (rather than a delusion or demonic deception foisted on people to provide a false hope), doesn't matter to me. Such stories can be found in books like Rita Bennett's "To Heaven and Back" (which is more credible to *me* because of who she is and the fact that her stories name names and are based on interviews). Also, it seems to me that post-mortem evangelism or post-mortem unilateral salvation (like that with infants) is something God, in His sovereignty, has a right to do if He so wishes. But there's no (or very slim) Scriptural warrant to believe that. So again, I leave that up to God's mercy and justice.
ReplyDeleteSo, in the final analysis, we have to deal with our own individual situation. Knowing that we're responsible for our own choices. John, you've been exposed (at least somewhat) to the Gospel. You know that you're not morally perfect. That you fail living up to your own moral standard. Also, if Christianity is true, then if you will search your own heart honestly enough, you know deep down that there is a God and you fail to live up to His standard as well.
According to the Calvinism, we are responsible to live in light of the Revealed Will of God (or prescriptive/preceptive will of God), regardless of what God's (secret) Will of Decree is. The "fact" of election doesn't tell us anything about whether you or I individually are elect or non-elect. We shouldn't be trying to figure out whether we individually are elect or not *before* we believe. Since, it's an impossible task because it hasn't been revealed to us and rather is kept among God's secrets (cf. Deut 29:29).
Our response to the Gospel should be that we understand that God is Holy and Just, we are sinners, and that in God's mercy, grace, and general love for mankind, He has provided atonement for sins, and we can avail ourselves of that salvation by believing the Gospel and trusting in Christ alone for our salvation.
John, you might say that you don't know whether Christ died for you particularly or not, therefore you might be beliving something that might not even apply to you at all. Well, while I believe Limited/Definite Atonement is true, I'm not dogmatic about it. Maybe sovereign unconditional election is true but that Particular Redemption (by itself) is false. In which case your objection doesn't stand. But even if Particular Redemption is true, you're still required to believe the Gospel anyway (since I believe in Duty-Faith), and will be judged for your rejection of the offer of salvation. Besides, if you were sick, and a doctor had a pill that you knew would either definitely cure you or definitely lessen your future suffering, the rational thing to do is to take the drug. You rationally know that if Christianity is true and you reject the Gospel, your experience of hell will be greater than if you had (from your perspective) at least "tried" Christianity. I say, "from your perspective" because, from the Calvinist point of view, only by God's regeneration can anyone genuinely and sincerely believe/respond to the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteBtw, for those Calvinists out there who are wondering, I'm more of a Piperian or Carsonian or Dabneyan Calvinist in that I believe that God does have a genuine benevolent (even loving or gracious) attitude toward the non-elect *in some sense*. Though, His special grace is obviously extended only toward the elect. I say that as one who suprisingly leans toward some kind of supralapsarianism.
John said:
However, if He is indeed omnipotent, He can do whatever He likes. If it turns out that He's decided to save three or four souls in the entirety of the human race, there's not much anyone can do about it, is there?
Well, then you're not dealing with the Christian God, or in this case, the Calvinist conception of God. Since, in Calvinism God's omnipotence is not exercised in a way that violates His promises. Rather, He exercises his omnipotence to ensure His promises are fulfilled. The 12 apostles (minus Judas Iscariot, plus Paul (and possibly Barnabas et al.) will be saved. In fact, the book of Revelation prophecies that many multitudes of people will be saved. Btw, different Calvinists disagree as to whether the majority of humanity will, when all is said and done, be saved or lost. I lean toward a minority being saved, but I can make a good case for the opposite (as others have done as well). In any case, it's not just 3 or 4 people who will be saved.
John said:
ReplyDeleteSome sinners or all sinners? If some, how does one go about determining whether one's hope is misplaced or not?
You're not required (by God) to make that determination. Nor is it necessary for you (personally) to determine that. It can never be misplaced if you're sincere. If you question your sincerity, ask God for a sincere conversion (from who it alone can come from). Keep asking till He gives it to you. But don't stand still and wait till you have a feeling or are fully convinced you're sincere to then afterwards believe. Especially since, you are coming to God AS A SINNER asking for salvation. God saves sinners, not the righteous. God will take care of the sin part. Don't wait till you're "perfect" to get saved. Not only is that a contradiction in terms, but you'll have to wait forever since you could never become perfect. [For the Calvinists interested, I recommend listening to Sinclair Ferguson's 3 series sermons on the Marrow Controversy which are freely on the web when it comes to the issue of the "requirements" for coming to Christ. http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=marrow&selectsearch=].
John said:
Really? Offer someone the choice between eternal "nothingness" and eternal punishment and tell me which one they choose.
But that's not what *we're* offering you. We're offering you the decison to choose for eternal life or eternal punishment.
John said:
You always look at this through your own prism, because you believe yourself among the chosen. Try looking at it through someone else's perspective.
From your perspective, you might say that:
1. Christianity seems less likely to be true than not true.
2. That to you, being an atheist at present, it seems more of a risk to believe in the Christian God, because of all the "fun" you would be missing out on in your one life which is soon past.
3. There are many possible choices because there are various worldviews (e.g. pantheism, panentheism, atheism, deism, polytheism, henotheism, Wiccan, nihilism, etc). Even then, there are various forms of theism besides Christianity (Judaism, Islam et al).
To quickly respond to that I would say that:
1. the case for Christianity is much stronger than the case for other religions. That's what this and other websites are dedicated to. And so Christianity is a far better "bet" than other worldviews.
2. atheism is foolish intellectually, practically/pragmatically. As Steve has said, atheism is futile, and futility is futile.
I said:
ReplyDeleteBesides, if you were sick, and a doctor had a pill that you knew would either definitely cure you or definitely lessen your future suffering, the rational thing to do is to take the drug.
Actually there are three options. A pill that would 1. definitely cure, 2. definitely lessen future suffering. *3.* Do nothing at all.
I guess the question then is, "Is there a 4th option where Christianity harms?" I don't see any harm in believing and living out true Biblical Christianity. Either for the person himself, or for others whom he/she influences.
Maybe someone can help me out in identifying the dangers of genuine Christianity. Notice I said "genuine" not false expressions of Christianity or actions that violate true Christianity. Appealing to the inquisition or the crusades won't work.
If Christianity is true, then *ONLY* living the Christian life is benefitial (in the long run), and every other worldview and philosophy of life is detrimental (in the long run).
But what if Christianity is false?Living as a Christian (assuming it's false) involves loving oneself, loving others as oneself. It gives meaning to all of life. There have been many atheists on their deathbeds or while suffering who have envied believers because in their blissful ignorance they can endure anything (and with JOY). Even if Christianity were false, it provides preconditions for meaning, morality, truth, and a trusting and cooperative society. If atheism were believed, there's nothing barring anyone from (literally) living with a "dog eat dog" (or human eat human) mentality. There's be no intellectual reason to be moral, or moral reason to be intellectually honest or consistent.
Again, could someone help me see the disadvantages of Christianity?
I can think of some that might come to the mind of a non-Christian, but I don't think they are problematic enough to mention. I'm looking for a serious reason for rejecting Christianity. This is not to say that living a Christian life won't require sacrifices, but I think they're all worth it. Maybe someone can make a case that shows me I'm wrong.
Btw, having said what I said about Christianity possibly being false, let me also say that I'm personally convinced that Christianity is true. For many reasons: Biblical, theological, logical, philosophical, deductive, inductive, abductive, reductive, empirical, existential, miraculous, impetratory (i.e. answered) prayers, testimonies of other Christians, historical, textual, scientific et cetera, et cetera etc.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete“Some sinners or all sinners? If some, how does one go about determining whether one's hope is misplaced or not?”
If you comply with the terms of the Gospel, then your hope is not misplaced.
“Really? Offer someone the choice between eternal ‘nothingness’ and eternal punishment and tell me which one they choose.”
Of course, the people who complain about hell don’t believe it.
And you’re also dodging the fact that hope for some is better than hope for none. On your view, it’s preferable that everyone go down with the ship rather than having lifeboats for some. I daresay the average passenger would beg to differ.
“Having gone under the knife several times, I'd imagine that ‘oblivion’ would be something similar to the feeling of general anesthesia. No thoughts, no awareness, nothing.”
Of course, you wouldn’t have surgery in the first place if you were indifferent about living or dying. Fear of death was the incentive.
“As awful as this seems to those of us who treasure being and the simple pleasures of existence, I'm not certain that the Christian (and especially the Calvinist outlook in particular) are less awful. Instead of eternal nothing, one has to hope that they will not experience eternal misery of unimagineable depths.”
One has to hope? Merely hope things won’t turn out badly?
No. Believe the Gospel and go to heaven; disbelieve the Gospel and go to hell.
It’s not as if you have to wait to find out, like buying a lottery ticket.
“For any rational person, they'd have to consider seriously the possibility that God is and will be their enemy, and the enemy of those they love.”
That sounds very sweet and sentimental, but the serious possibility that God is and will be the enemy of Charles Manson and his loved ones (to take one example) isn’t a strike against the Christian faith.
All, I appreciate the thoughtful comments.
ReplyDeleteHowever..
Steve writes: "[T]he serious possibility that God is and will be the enemy of Charles Manson and his loved ones (to take one example) isn’t a strike against the Christian faith."
What did Charles Manson do that was so offensive? As far as I know, he wasn't even directly responsible for the deaths of the families. It was those whom he influenced that shed blood. Yet, people such as yourself will bend over backwards to defend the actions of John Calvin, who played a critical role in the painful and excruciating deaths of other CHRISTIANS! Far from being an "enemy of God", Calvin is one of His chosen! Your theology is completely incoherent.
If Charles Manson had spouted some profundities about the Trinity or God's sovereignty and predestination, perhaps you'd be singing a different tune.
There's nothing more odious to me than the glorification of vice in the name of religion.
JOHN SAID:
ReplyDelete"What did Charles Manson do that was so offensive?"
That question says a lot about your moral compass.
"Yet, people such as yourself will bend over backwards to defend the actions of John Calvin..."
Quote me where I've done so.
"...who played a critical role in the painful and excruciating deaths of other CHRISTIANS!"
Is that an allusion to Servetus? If so, Servetus was not a Christian.
If you're alluding to other capital crimes in 16C Geneva, the death penalty is hardly equivalent to murder.
"There's nothing more odious to me than the glorification of vice in the name of religion."
I assume you've met your daily quota for emoting.