Well, Tracy has a post up about hell which Tink responded to and I went ahead and commented on (both posts actually). And, it got me to thinking about hell, the doctrine of faith alone leading to salvation, and the age of accountability. So, somewhat off-topic, but here goes - and I think this will just add to the mix...
So, Tracy was a bit upset at contemplating the idea that Anne Frank may right now be in hell, right alongside Hitler. While I may contend that Hitler had a better chance of getting into heaven, so Anne may not be beside the leader behind her being killed, that's not the point here. Even if they are both in hell, it's actually much, much worse than that.
John 14:6 says:
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
As I pointed out in the comments on those other threads, this means that Anne Frank (unless she was lying about being Jewish and secretly believed in Jesus) is in hell right now. But, as I said, it's worse than that. When a woman conceives, Xians believe the soul enters the fertilized egg, meaning that that soul now can go to heaven or hell. Since a fertilized egg is incapable of belief in Jesus (lacks the brain function) then if that egg dies due to abortion, miscarriage, etc. that soul goes to hell. That is the fallout of this Xian doctrine.
Ah, but some Xians may claim that there's an age of accountability that allows such unfortunate souls to get a free ride to heaven. Too bad this directly contradicts the stated Bible passage above. No one attains salvation, except through belief in Jesus. If some do attain salvation without belief in Jesus, then Jesus was at best wrong, and at worst lying, and the Bible is in error. At this point, the Xian must accept that the Bible may be wrong, or must accept that miscarried fetuses go to hell (or even young children that don't yet understand the idea of belief in Jesus). Is it any wonder that I find this sort of doctrine to be barbaric, abominable, and evil?
28 comments:
Hey GCT (whatever that stands for),
I've been reading through your blog, and it's very intriguing, considering I very recently have been rapidly evolving out of a 5 year fundamentalist christian (or as you would say, Xian) mindset. It actually started when I read through the entirety of Godisimaginary.com in one night, dumbfounded at the stupidity of what I believed for so long. This was followed immediately by a thorough read of the subsidiary webpage Whywontgodhealamputees.com, which was even more fascinating, and more importantly, eye-opening.
I must say, your blog struck a nerve when the topic of hell came up, as I had been pondering the very same questions you were charging Xians with ignoring. For example, why is abortion bad, when most fundamentalists believe that babies who die go to heaven? Why would a god of love send billions (perhaps trillions) of people to hell to burn in agony for eternity? And of course, why does the bible justify the wholesale slaughter of entire cities, as well as the near extinction of the human race by god?
I still would not quite define myself as an atheist just yet; more as an agnostic perhaps. But nevertheless, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through your webpage, and look forward to more thoughts that may help expose others, who are oblivious to reason (as I once was), to good, sound, logical arguments.
Thank you Jake, I appreciate the comment and I hope you continue your journey of finding reason and logic.
Sigh... Where do I start?
@ Evil_Jake- It can be shocking when you take a step back and see it for what it is. Keep reading, get informed. You may still want to be an Xian when you are finished. There is nothing wrong with a person becoming more informed, and still deciding that this is right. But, I can offer you this. When I finally decided to accept, and become vocal about my atheism, I was never happier. It has been really really good for my life.
As far as hell. This is the problem of dogma. It seperates people. As long as this nonsense persists, we will never socially evolve. If they cannot see the passive Anti Semitism in their beliefs, if they cannot see that a privileged kingdom only awaits the elite followers, and the societal consequences of such a view, we do not have alot to look forward too.
The irrationality of the argument about babies and stuff will make your head spin. They are so insane about it, that they stopped stem cell research, which would have saved millions of lives. And, that is why you have to fight them. They are the only group who feels entitled to push their agenda on public policy.
@GCT:
The verse quoted says "except through me" not "except through expressing a personal faith in me".
I think the reason you will not get far with Christinas is because you seem to be conflating the terms 'grace', 'justifycation' and 'faith'.
Consider: Abraham never heard the name "Jesus" and yet he was saved because of what Jesus did. To what degree are young children (and babies) held accountable to faith? To what measure of faith is one held who has never heard the Bible or the name of Jesus? If "faith" is the prerequisite (not the saying of any particular phrase) then perhaps both evangelicals (and those critical of it's doctrines) have been too narrow in their focus.
"The verse quoted says "except through me" not "except through expressing a personal faith in me"."
Which, in Xian speak, is almost always interpreted as believing that Jesus died for your sins.
GCT:
You wrote: "Which, in Xian speak, is almost always interpreted as believing that Jesus died for your sins."
Agreed. But the method by which the gift was obtained and the method by which the gift is transmitted or received do not necessarily have to be the same.
Um, if you believe that going "thru Jesus" means that one must believe that Jesus died for your sins, then yeah, it does kinda mean that one has to believe in Jesus in order to have a shot at heaven.
@GCT:
Some argue about this. What of Abraham and the people who were saved before Jesus' lifetime? They didn't know the name, but they (by faith) were looking forward to the fulfillment of God's promise. Why couldn't work the same way with children/babies/people who don't know?
I think that this is pretty explicit:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
All of these loopholes that you are questioning, like Abraham, etc only point to one thing. The impossible contradiction and irrational nature of your religion. Although, they are so fun to humor.
Anon,
Re Abraham: it's called special pleading.
As for babies, they can't have faith in anything since they don't have the ability to have faith.
The verse is clear that salvation is made available only through Jesus. That there is no other way.
Abraham was saved through Jesus. Abraham wasn't 'good' enough to earn his way to the Father. Genesis 15:6 declares that Abram believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.
Faith was the vehicle which supplied salvation to Abraham, Jesus' death and resurrection purchased that salvation. The gift was given in Grace, made available through Jesus and applied to the life of the individual through faith.
Age of Accountability
This site seems just as clueless regarding the issue as anyone, and they are a leading Christian answers resource.
At one point they say the age of accountability may be 13 (according to Jewish custom), then later say that it is "once he or she is capable of making a faith decision for or against Christ."
To cover their proverbial asses, they apprehensively state "It is our position that God applies Christ's payment for sin to young children and those who are mentally handicapped, since they were not mentally capable of understanding their sinful state and their need for the Savior, but again we cannot be dogmatic."
This is rather convenient, but what does all this imply? Well, the paradox becomes more clear when we consider that the age of accountability doesn't come at a set time. So, depending on when a child reaches this age (not birthday age, mind you), if he or she happens to die milliseconds before or after this sudden cognizant awakening, his/her fate could be either very good, or very bad.
Either way, this leaves many counter-intuitive propositions to be considered. If the age of accountability is real, then a matter of milliseconds could mean the difference between everlasting pleasure, and eternal torture. Furthermore, if it is real, then abortion is probably THE MOST compassionate thing we could possibly do for a (baby) person, because we are potentially saving them from a horrible fate, AND sending them to eternal pleasure and happiness.
On the other hand, if there is no age of accountability, then god is more reprehensible than we thought, because that means he is sending babies and small children (and potentially the mentally handicapped) to eternal torture simply for lacking the ability to reason.
"The verse is clear that salvation is made available only through Jesus. That there is no other way."
Which you agreed means having faith in Jesus. How Abraham could have had faith in a figure that wasn't yet born is a mystery to me and is really nothing more than a case of special pleading. That's the problem with absolutes, which religion seems to deal in.
GCT:
You wrote: "Which you agreed means having faith in Jesus."
I agreed this is normally interpreted to mean 'believing that Jesus died for your sins.' I then followed that up by stating I feel we have conflated the concepts of salvation obtained and salvation applied.
Again, salvation was obtained (made available) through Jesus. It is applied in the life of the individual because of their faith. If Jesus had never come to die, Abram's faith would have been for nothing as there would have been no salvation to apply.
"I agreed this is normally interpreted to mean 'believing that Jesus died for your sins.' I then followed that up by stating I feel we have conflated the concepts of salvation obtained and salvation applied."
If believing that Jesus died for your sins is a necessary condition, as the Bible states, then there's no conflating being done, except by those who try to explain their way out of the clear statements made in the Bible.
"Again, salvation was obtained (made available) through Jesus."
Through faith in Jesus you mean.
"It is applied in the life of the individual because of their faith."
And it can't be applied to those who don't have faith for whatever reason or else the Bible is false.
"If Jesus had never come to die, Abram's faith would have been for nothing as there would have been no salvation to apply."
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If faith in Jesus is required, then Abraham's faith was for nothing as he knew nothing of Jesus.
GCT:
You wrote: "Through faith in Jesus you mean."
No, this is where the conflation has occurred. Jesus' purchase of salvation has nothing to do with us. Jesus made salvation available through his sacrifice, the gift is opened, applied, effective, taken, received (whichever of these words help make it most clear) through faith.
Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of all, but only efficient for the sins of those who place their faith in Him.
Anon: "Jesus' sacrifice was sufficient to cover the sins of all, but only efficient for the sins of those who place their faith in Him."
You claim a conflation, then conclude with a rewording of what you claimed was a conflation.
Not too damn bright, are ya son.
As Tyler points out, there's no conflation when you repeat my claim as true.
GCT:
You wrote: "As Tyler points out, there's no conflation when you repeat my claim as true."
I haven't repeated you. For instance you wrote: "I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. If faith in Jesus is required, then Abraham's faith was for nothing as he knew nothing of Jesus."
Here is your conflation. Abraham was the recipient of the salvation Jesus obtained for him through Abraham's faith. (Genesis 15:6) Hebrews 11 expounds upon this. (unless you wish to argue all these figures 'faith' was not seen as salvific)
You seem to be arguing for a 'say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus' type of faith instead of recognizing faith as something deeper and more meaningful than saying the right words.
You seem to suggest that saying the passcode earns one salvation, instead of recognizing that it is only because of Jesus death and resurrection that any of us have hope of eternal salvation.
Jesus obtained the salvation for everyone who ever was and ever will be saved. That salvation is applied to us through our faith, just as it always has been. (Abram, Noah, Enoch, Peter, Paul, etc...)
Sorry Anon, but I'm not conflating anything. In fact, it is you who is closer to it than I.
You keep claiming that Jesus died for our sins and that we must believe that he did so in order to attain salvation, but they you also want to claim that others can have salvation without belief in Jesus. So, which is it? Does one need to have faith in Jesus or not? How did Abraham have faith in a figure that he knew nothing about?
This is why the Bible is contradictory. You can't claim that one must believe in Jesus to attain salvation and that one doesn't need to believe in Jesus in order to attain salvation. These are contradictory claims. You'll have to choose one or the other and then deal with the logical consequences (i.e. that either way you choose, the Bible messes it up, because either it's wrong about Abraham or it's wrong about Jesus being the only way).
Still, there's no conflation going on here. You'll have to do a lot better than to claim that, "You seem to be arguing for a 'say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus' type of faith instead of recognizing faith as something deeper and more meaningful than saying the right words." For one, it's a straw man. Secondly, whether it's a deep faith in Jesus or a shallow one, I don't care. What I care about is that the Bible claims two things which are contradictory and I've pointed it out. You can either deal with the contradiction or you can continue to wave about your claims of conflation. Which will it be?
GCT:
You wrote: "Does one need to have faith in Jesus or not? How did Abraham have faith in a figure that he knew nothing about?"
If one has been presented with the gospel message then yes they would need to have 'faith in Jesus'. Abraham did not have this revelation, he still believed God (had faith) which was salvific even though he didn't have the full revelation of God's plan of salvation through Jesus.
I'm not convinced that people who haven't heard the gospel are not in the same boat as Abraham. Still requiring faith, but faith which reflects the degree of revelation which they have been given. In either case, us/Abram/those who haven't heard, the requirement is the same... faith. Isn't that hinted at in Luke 12:47-48?
IOW, you are claiming that faith in Jesus is NOT a requirement to attaining salvation, but simply faith in god. In that case, Jesus's sacrifice was superfluous and unnecessary and he did not die for all our sins, thus contradicting a central tenet of the Xian faith.
GCT:
You wrote: "IOW, you are claiming that faith in Jesus is NOT a requirement to attaining salvation, but simply faith in god. In that case, Jesus's sacrifice was superfluous and unnecessary and he did not die for all our sins, thus contradicting a central tenet of the Xian faith."
Non-sequitor. Faith as a requirement for salvation is a seperate issue from the payment for sin. Again, this is your conflation. You keep trying to describe both things as though they are the same.
If I purchase a bike for my child then tell them they must keep their room clean for a week in order to get the bike... the child is not purchasing the bike from the store by keeping their room clean. The bike has been purchased, it will be applied to their experience if they obey.
Why will you not deal with the very obvious and very easy point that I'm making here and instead insist on claiming that I'm conflating simply because you want to deal with something different which is unrelated?
In your bike example, is it or is it not a condition of obtaining the bike that the child keep the room clean for a week? Regardless of whether you've already obtained the bike for them or not, the condition is that they must keep the room clean or else they do not receive the bike. Correct?
Now, simply substitute bike for salvation and "keeping one's room clean" for belief in Jesus and you might finally get it.
The claim that Xianity makes is that in order to obtain the bike (obtain salvation) one must keep one's room clean (one must believe in Jesus). Yet, this causes problems because you're also claiming that one does not have to keep one's room clean (does not have to believe in Jesus) in order to obtain the bike (obtain salvation). This is contradictory. Stop trying to accuse me of conflation because I've used your exact example and showed you what the contradiction is with it. Deal with the contradiction.
GCT:
For those who have heard the gospel, yes, they must believe in Jesus. This is God's message, to reject Jesus is to reject God's message. (lack of faith)
The Bible assures us that people who seek God will find Him, and I believe that those who have not heard the gospel can still have faith which is salvific(see my Abraham examples or rather just read Hebrews).
Keeping one's room clean is having faith. You keep insisting that keeping one's room clean means saying the magic words or gaining some sort of knowledge. In this you are arguing much more against gnosticism than orthodox Christianity. Faith is not an action we take once in our life in order to be 'saved'. Unfortunately some evangelicals reduced faith and its expression to 'come forward and say a prayer'. That isn't the type of faith presented in the Bible. Read James.
My only point in starting to try to converse with you at all was to point out the gross mischaracterization you present when you criticize the Bible. I wouldn't someone with no drafting skills the opportunity to change my blueprints for the house I was building, and I suspect you will not sway the opinion of anyone who has even an inkling of Biblical knowledge until you go and gain some yourself. Or perhaps you enjoy attacking stuffed dolls...
Anon,
"For those who have heard the gospel, yes, they must believe in Jesus. This is God's message, to reject Jesus is to reject God's message. (lack of faith)"
First of all, rejecting Jesus is not the same as having a lack of faith. Second of all, you are claiming that Jesus is not the only way into heaven, since those who haven't heard the gospel and can't possibly believe in Jesus can attain salvation. Therefore the Bible is false by your own words. Game over.
"The Bible assures us that people who seek God will find Him..."
Which is demonstrably false.
"and I believe that those who have not heard the gospel can still have faith which is salvific(see my Abraham examples or rather just read Hebrews)."
You can believe that all you want, but it makes the Bible contradictory.
"Keeping one's room clean is having faith. You keep insisting that keeping one's room clean means saying the magic words or gaining some sort of knowledge."
For the millionth time, I have not insisted any such thing. This idea of yours has been wholly invented by you. Stop with the straw man argument that I'm not making.
"My only point in starting to try to converse with you at all was to point out the gross mischaracterization you present when you criticize the Bible."
You have not done so. All you've done is make up a position that you claim I hold, which I have not advocated and then ignored all the points I've made about the contradictions in the Bible.
"I wouldn't someone with no drafting skills the opportunity to change my blueprints for the house I was building, and I suspect you will not sway the opinion of anyone who has even an inkling of Biblical knowledge until you go and gain some yourself."
Um, yeah, OK. Why don't you educate us all and show your advanced Biblical knowledge and actually address the contradictions I've brought forth?
"Or perhaps you enjoy attacking stuffed dolls..."
Considering that your whole line of attack in the comments in this is to claim that I'm talking about faith being magic words when I'm not even talking about what faith is or isn't...well, it's kinda rich to hear you claiming that I'm the one making a straw man argument.
GCT:
I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who wrote coherently and was able to articulate what they meant. Do please try again so that way you don't accidentally write things you later try to claim you didn't mean. I can refer you to a good thesaurus or online dictionary should you need help. I hear local librarians also take time to help people with special needs write clearly what they mean to say. Good luck with that.
"I'm sorry, I mistook you for someone who wrote coherently and was able to articulate what they meant."
Wow, so you go off into left field talking about stuff that was not even mentioned at any point in what I said and that's somehow my fault for not being clear enough? Meanwhile I continually correct you and try to get you to answer the actual point being made, restating multiple times and you still don't get it...but that's also my fault?
I've laid it out pretty clearly, you just refuse to deal with the obvious contradictions.
Post a Comment