FacePalm of the Day #109 - The Atheist Literature Club: Religitics - Aftermeeting Discussion 2 - No, mine!

John Loftus posted the following on his blog: Lots of facepalms here.

Here is a debate between Valerie Dennett an atheist, Zakir Deedat a Muslim, Greg Turkel a Christian, Hugh Talmage a Mormon, and Moritz Duam a Jew. This is what I'm talking about!

Here is what he linked to. He thinks that it shows exactly what the Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) would look like if it were put into practice in a real discussion between the major religions of America. It is presented as if it is a real transcript of real people talking about religion. There are a couple of things that make me skeptical. 1. No one makes me believe that anyone of the participates know what themselves or the other participates believe beyond  straw men and what anyone can glean from mainstream media. 2. No one offers any serious apologetic for why they believe what they believe beyond ridiculing others. 3. The names of the participants could possibly be made up. I've annotated the post exaplaining where it fails to be convincing and the OTF. 

A little while after the meeting, Valerie stepped back into the room. The men were still arguing.

"There is absolutely no truth in the Koran." Turkel was saying. "Only a fool would follow the teachings of Muhammad instead of Jesus."

Anyone who would say this means that they have never read the Qur'an. There is some good in it. Some things that are in it that are true. Unfortunately it is a charge many ignorant Christians make.

"The plain fact is that the bible was corrupted!" Zakir shot at him. "Only the Koran is the real work of God."

Funny, how I've never heard a Muslim disagree with this statement despite the fact that no one can demonstrate it. I can't blame them because the Bible contradicts the Qur'an. Although the Qur'an does not say that the Jewish and Christians scriptures are corrupted  but if the Muslim does not believe that then there is much he or she must answer.

"The Koran got everything wrong about Jesus," Turkel replied.

Well, not everything. Sinless. Born of  a Virgin.  Nope, the Qur'an did not get everything wrong about Jesus. This is one of the reason why I think that this piece is fictitious (doesn't rate the status of  "parable"): a real knowledgeable person would never say something so outlandish.

"How do you know?" Zakir asked him, harshly.

He doesn't Turkel was asked about how he knew the Qur'an says nothing correct about Jesus, Notice how Turkel doesn't answer the question. .

"There are four men who wrote about the life of Jesus," Greg Turkel answered him. "All of them agree with each other about what went on in his life."

I agree but that doesn't answer Zakir's question.

"Nonsense!" Zakir shot. "Each of those men were late and disagreed with each other fantastically. There are swarms of contradictions among them! Only the Gospel of Barnabas is the true depiction of the life of Jesus, where he admits that he is not the messiah!"

What happened to the discussion  of the Qur'an? Zakir is just as bad as Turkel. No proof is offered that the Gospel of Barnabas was not corrupted and that the New Testament was not corrupted.

"Rubbish!" Turkel snapped, pointing a finger at him. "You know darn well that that 'gospel' is even later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John!"

Now that's true. 

"That's right, " Hugh Talmage joined. "The New Testament writers are more reliable than Barnabas."

Now that's true.

"Oh, excuse me," Zakir mocked. "And we are also to belief that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri?"

I admit that this is a weakness in Mormon Theology but it doesn't help the conversation

Hugh turned red with rage and was about to respond when Moritz Duam overrode him.

Sure would like to have seen the Mormon respond to that charge, but who ever made up this conversation probably doesn't know what the Mormon Apologetic is. 

"Even though Barnabas is late it doesn't help the gospels." He argued. "For they portray a man who was not the messiah."

Oh, another argument people make who don't know better. And no substantiation  offered whatsoever.

"He WAS the messiah," Greg replied. "He met the standards of the messianic prophecy!"

Agreed, and it's demonstrably true.

"No he didn't!" Moritz yelled. "The messiah is to reveal himself when all on Earth belief in God. That has never happened!"

Sure would like to know where in Tanak that is written. It's just thrown out there and no reference. 

"How do you know such a thing?" Turkel yelled back. "Were YOU there?"

Neither were any of the speakers. Adds nothing to the discussion. 

"Of course not," Moritz said hotly. "But I didn't have to be there to know that the Christians just stole from the Hebrews!"

More inflammatory argument. Anyone bother to pick up a book? All of the first Christians were Hebrews.

"Rubbish!" Turkel responded, pounding the table.

Oh that's a useful come back.

"It's the truth." Moritz countered. "Why else would the bible contain the works of the Hebrews? We all know that the old and new testaments don't match. The Christians simply took a man from history and tried to make him fit the prophecy!"

And the proof is...?

"Both are right and wrong," Hugh Talmage spoke up. "Joseph Smith got down and prayed which church to join, and an angel of the lord told him that none of them have it right. Not that all of them, particularly Christianity, but..."

And the proof is...?

"Oh, be quiet," Zakir shot. "Nobody takes your faith seriously, not even some of the other Mormons. You are essentially on par with the church of scientology."

Well...that's no way to change another man's mind.  Not that proof or evidence would work, but it's always better to try it.

"You've obviously never read the Book of Mormon," Hugh snapped at him. "It would change your life if you had."

I find that most Atheists think that this is the kind of answer is the only one all theists have. Not true.

"No, it would not."

A better answer would be "It didn't." 

"Unlikely,"

"I highly doubt that."

If you haven't tried it, then you haven't applied OTF very well have you. The answers given show that none of the speakers have applied the OTF to any one else's worldview.

All three men answered at the same time. Even Valerie scoffed at the idea. She was resting her chin on her hand, listening to them men argue.

Valerie scoffed for a different reason than the  men. 

"Why?" Hugh asked, turning red.

Duh. Not much of an apologetic. 

"Your ideas are absurd, that's why." Moritz said. "You actually think that ancient Jews sailed to America?"

"Well..." Hugh tried.

Should have let Hugh try to present evidence. 

"Not to mention that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri," Zakir sneered.

"All seem very unlikely," Turkel finished.

To dismiss a man on possibility  is not enough. Where is the discussion? Facts. Evidence. 

"Look, you want to know why I believe," Hugh asked, still red. "You really want to know."

"Not particularly," Mortiz replied.

And that is the problem in discussions like this. No one listens to the other person. 

"It's because I asked for the truth," Hugh asked. "I got down on my knees and I asked God himself if it was true. And he told me, I could feel it in my stomach, his precense as he..."

And that's not a good enough reason to follow anything.

He couldn't finish because Zakir and Moritz guffawed in the middle of his speech. Turkel chuckled softly to himself. A smile came onto Valerie's lips.

Of course most Atheists seem to think that this is the only reasoning theists are capable of.

"He says he felt it in his stomach!" Zakir mocked, wiping his eyes. "He does not think that it was just a case of indigestion?"

Oh, yes. That's destructive. 

"Perhaps it was the indigestion of the angel, Moroni!" Moritz joined.

Right. Helpful

"That is as ridiculous as the claim that Jesus rose," Zakir laughed.

When you make fun one person, you always open yourself up to the same.  Which is it that's ridiculous: the angel's Moroni's indigestion or that the Book of Mormon brings conviction of truth when reading it.

"Now hold on!" Turkel scolded. "That's another bogus claim. If you think Jesus didn't rise then you're as low as Hugh!"

Careful. As a Mormon, Hugh would believe in Jesus' Resurrection.

"Hey!" Talmage cried, outraged.

"How can you believe such nonsense!?" Zakir asked. "The story is so implausible!"

Which story, The Resurrection or Mormon mythology theology?

"Well, how can you explain the fact that Josephus, a secular Jewish historian, confirmed the resurrection?" Turkel asked.

Problem is Josephus didn't, but that doesn't mean the Resurrection did not happen.

"Nonsense!" Moritz countered. "That passage in Josephus was not written by any man of the Jewish faith. He never would have called Jesus the messiah, and he believed a whole different man was the messiah!"

Many knowledgeable scholars would disagree. Why isn't any of their work cited?

"But he mentioned Jesus twice!" Turkel replied.

Yup, but this comeback is poorly constructed. 

"So what?" Moritz asked. "Even if that was true, it wouldn't show that he rose from the dead! Besides, he was talking about a completely different Jesus, which wasn't an uncommon name, you understand."

Now that is not a great comeback.  No way to prove it that Josephus was talking about a different man than the New Testament is about.

"Many secular historians mention Jesus and..."

That's true. 

"Most of their testamonies are discussing what Christians believe!" Zakir snapped. "They are completely irrelevant to your case!"

And the fact that Christians believed in a man from Galillee was God made flesh, and died from their sins freeing them from sin and death is not irrelevant at all in showing who Jesus is.

"Are you insinuating that Jesus did not exist?" Turkel growled.

Which I thought was Turkel's point. 

"Of course not," Moritz said. "There is little history on his existence, though there is some. But there is even less that he was the messiah. Less that he rose from the dead."

Okay, so Mortz is trying to explain what he meant. But he overstates his case.

"You're spewing nonsense!" Turkel snapped at them. "That's almost as wrong as saying that the Gospel of Barnabas was the real account of Jesus!"

Yup, that's wrong. But I doubt that would make anyone see that. 

"The bible was corrupted!" Zakir yelled. "We, Muslims, know this. None of your evidence is good enough!"

What evidence is that? How do Muslims know this. 

"There is no reason to believe that Muhammad was any more than a fraud!" Turkel countered.

Oh more unsubstantiated accusations follow others. 

"Has it occured to any of you that you ALL might be wrong?"

It was Valerie. The men looked at her.

We should all consider that. Even the Atheist.

"What are you talking about?" Zakir snapped.

"I mean, listen to yourselves," Valerie said, pushing up her glasses. "You all accuse each other of being wrong while claiming that your religion is right. You critize every other religion harshly and find it foolish to believe. But, let me ask you something. If you were to examine your own religion like you do for others, do you think that you'd still believe it?"

That's a good question.  Does Valerie do the same?

"Oh, so the ATHEIST thinks she knows how the world works?" Zakir growled.

Only God knows how the world works. 

"I didn't say that," Valerie replied. "I just think that you should all look at what you believe from my perspective. I wasn't always an non-believer. I was actually a Christian growing up. But I began to question my views and I took the position of an outside and looked at my religion as a skeptic would. I realized that nobody, unless having been brought up to belief it, would buy the stories of religion."

Did John Loftus write this, drivel? It ignores the fact that people convert to other religions all the time. 

"Valerie, you failed to do the simplest thing in the world," Hugh Talmage told her. "All you needed to do was pray to God for verification and..."

All she needed to do was open up the  Bible and do some research. 

"He would answer if I had an open heart," Valerie finished for him. "I've heard that a hundred times, Hugh. The thing is, I did have an open heart and I did pray. But any feeling I got was just me feeling something because I felt I was suppose to feel something. That wasn't enough for me."

It was nothing to do with an open heart. If God doesn't open it, it won't be opened.

"Have you actually read the Bible, Valerie?" Turkel asked. "If you have, you..."

Turkel and Talmage's answes are the same to Valerie. A knowledgeable Christian wouldn't give the same answer.

"Would believe the truth that lies within it," She finished. "I have read the Bible, Greg. I didn't find it very convincing."

And this is how we know what anyone's spiritual state is:

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:


“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”


20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength. -1 Corinthians 1:18-25

"How come?" Greg asked.

"Well, I don't believe in talking snakes or donkeys, for one," Valerie told him. "I don't believe that a man can rise from the dead. I don't believe that a man can live in a whale. I don't believe that a man can cause another man to rise from the dead. I also don't believe in unicorns, which are mentioned in the Bible."

Valerie can believe whatever he or she chooses. However that doesn't make it wrong or right. And if  "unicorns" in the  Bible is offensive then read another translation. Modern translations more correctly translate those passages. Unicorns cannot be found in Hebrew culture. so we know that isn't what was thought to be in original texts.

"Well, I'm not sure why the authors mentioned unicorns," Turkel said. "I'm open minded about it. It could be metaphorical for something, it could be they mistook something for a unicorn. But, my main objection to you is that you are clearly biased in your assesment of miracles. You assume, out of hand, that they never occur. That's completely circular."

Bad answer.

"I never said that I KNOW miracles don't happen," Valerie replied. "I said that I don't believe that they do. There's a difference. Maybe I should have said that I'm very skeptical of claims of miracles.

Oh she misspoked.

I think David Hume was correct in what he said about miracles. I mean, what is more likely? That the laws of nature were suspended so that you might be revived from the dead, or that the person telling you this is gravely mistaken?

So although you don't KNOW miracles cannot happen, she and other choose to believe they didn't. That makes sense. 

It's not circular, it's a question of what's more likely. If I told you that I could make a flashlight fly into my hands, you'd probably dismiss me as having imagined the whole thing. And rightly so."

Or one would be a Jedi. Much sense as a flying spaghetti flying monster. My question would be why? Each and every miracle in the Bible had a reason.

"So you don't believe in God?" Moritz asked. "How can you be so sure? Isn't your atheism just as much as a faith position?"

Good question.

"Not really." Valerie replied. "I would say that I'm more of an atheist against religion. About the notion of God, I am more of an agnostic. I just don't think, if there is a God, that we are able to understand him or what he, or she, or they, or it want us to do."

Standard answer when an atheist gets too close to the fire.

"Your position is laughable," Zakir growled. "Only a fool would not believe in a divine creator."

"Really, Zakir?" Valerie asked him. "I read a very interesting book once and the author suggested to people of faith that they take a test. He called it the Outsider Test for Faith. Basically, you take the position of a skeptic and you anaylze the claims of your religion like an atheist or an agnostic would. Then, if your religion passes, you have a good faith. Unfortunately, he, nor I, think that any religion passes that test."

She didn't answer his question.

"That's foolish!"

"Rubbish!"

"Absolute nonsense!"

"That's just absurd!"

All men raged at her at the same time.

Give her a second.

"Let me ask you something, Valerie," Greg Turkel said. "Have you subjected your faith to this test that you're talking about. Have you questioned your skepticism as an outsider to it?"

Another good question.

"An outsider to skepticism is a person of faith," Valerie told him. "They already believe and of course they would find it difficult to believe what I do. But atheism isn't a faith. If all religions fail the outsider test then atheism, the lack of belief in religions, is all that is left. Or you can be an agnostic if that suits you better."

So the answer is  "No."

"Well, I promise you that the Christian faith passes that test with flying colors." Turkel said. "I was once in your position, Valerie, but I found the truth in God's word through his son."

"Yes, but did you consider anyone else's faith before finding Jesus?" Valerie asked. "Did you see if perhaps Zakir was right? Or maybe Hugh?"

I have. They failed. 

"Only a fool would believe the nonsense of the 'Latter Day Saints'," Zakir sneered. "But if anyone who takes such a test were to apply it to the Koran, they would not be able to rationally deny that the Koran is real vessel of truth."

"Nonsense!" Turkel and Moritz both raged.

"I'm tired of your bashing my faith!" Hugh cried, outraged.

They began arguing again. Valerie sighed and buried her face in her hands again. Then she stood up and walked out of the room.

No one not even Valerie was willing to "put up or shut up"  Which is the problem in most of these discussions. No one truly really ready to step up. :Loftus has tried to posit that the OTF can be found in the Bible. I agree. Look at the account of Elijah on Mount Carmel. Elijah through down the gauntlet and slapped his opponents with the proverbial glove. 

²⁰ So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. ²¹ Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
   But the people said nothing.
 ²² Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the LORD’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. ²³ Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. ²⁴ Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire—he is God.”
   Then all the people said, “What you say is good.”1 Kings 18:18-24

Fair enough. This was the OTF in action. If you ask God to do God stuff in your life and willing to follow the evidence wherever it goes. You will find God!

The Atheist Literature Club: Religitics - Aftermeeting Discussion 2 - No, mine!

Letters to a Mormon Elder by Dr James White

One of Dr. James White's best known books is available for reading online at the following link. I got this information from a tweet by Brian Auten.

Letters to a Mormon Elder

Related articles

• Is God an Exalted Man? (str.typepad.com)
• Mormon ad campaign launches in New York City ()
• Tony Awards Preview: The Book of Mormon, War Horse, and More (thedailybeast.com)
• Mormon candidates must confront religion's racist past (thegrio.com)
• -Mormon in the White House? Evangelicals Vs. Mormons Controversy Heats Up (answersforthefaith.com)

FacePalm of the Day #80 - Wrong, root and branch; wrong at every cell and molecule; wrong to the core : Pharyngula

John Loftus posted a link to an article written by PZ Meyers about Harold Camping. I think it's worth looking at his post. There are things we can learn about the mind of the unregenerate sinner's mind. The article proves that although the Bible-believing Christian must reject Camping's teaching - agreeing with atheists on that point - the disagreement with Camping comes form a whole different set of reasons. PZ Meyers is just as wrong and deluded as Camping is deceived. I've re-posted Meyer's article with my comments in red.

The world didn't end last Saturday (obviously), but Harold Camping and his predictions are just a smokescreen, and everyone is missing the heart of the problem.

You mean that Camping being wrong and unrepentant doesn't mean the Bible is wrong? .I know...but one could hope.

Camping has now spoken. He now claims that Jesus did arrive 'spiritually' on the 21st, and that in his generous mercy, God has decided to spare us the 153 days of the tribulation, but that the world will still be ending on 21 October. This is no surprise. This is exactly what these crackpot prophets do: they're never right, but they are great at rationalizing.

 And just where in the Bible did Camping get all of that?  The Bible says no such thing.

His followers are busy readjusting. Here's a radio interview with one bible-thumper; the guy who threw away his life savings on subway signs was left wandering in Times Square, confused and disappointed. None of them has changed their beliefs about the biblical apocalypse, they're just fudging the dates.
The Family Radio website has been scrubbed clean of mentions of Judgment Day.
And what do I see from most people? A stern finger-wagging with biblical authority reaffirmed.

Biblical authority is affirmed because it is promised that false prophets will be shown for the frauds that they are. And notice how Camping does exactly opposite what the Bible says we should do.

I was sent that image by someone who clearly thought it was a joke, but I am not laughing. I'm angry, instead. I don't fucking care what fucking Jesus fucking said. The problem is NOT that some kook in California plucked numbers out of the Bible and conjured up a numerological justification for a date: the idiocy runs much deeper than that.

 First, why the profanity? Can't we make valid points without being vulgar? In Meyer's case here it  is important to point out that we should care what Jesus said because when we find some one saying opposite and mutually exclusive claims - we know we have a false prophet.

• The entire myth of dispensationalism — that time is divided into distinct ages with discrete beginnings and ends, characterized by distinct bodies of knowledge granted us by divine will — is nonsense. These fairy tales of a rapture and tribulation and world destruction are entirely the invention of crank theologians elaborating on the ravings of the 19th century Irish priest, John Nelson Darby. It's no more sourced or historical or rational than the goddamn Book of Mormon.

Obviously, Meyer's disagrees with Darby. Fine. Lots of Christians do.  Equating his ideas with the Book of Mormon shows that he probably doesn't know anything about the Book of Mormon. On top of that, given that he does not care about what Jesus said, he probably doesn't know what the Bible says about Darby's ideas anymore than he does about Camping.

• Christian eschatology is a vile and hateful message about their imaginary tyrant god who, once again, is scheduled to have a temper tantrum in which he kills almost everyone, snatches up their souls, and makes them suffer for eternity for being human. A few will be spared; their reward is an eternity of servility, but at least they get to know they're better than everyone else. And that's the real lesson here: it's all about elitism and the most extreme threats imaginable to anyone who does not support these self-appointed masters of dogma. Again, there's no reason to believe any of it, other than that people have absorbed the propaganda for the whole of their lifetime.

I sure would like to know who Meyer talks to.  Not all Christians would agree with the eschatology he presents here. Easy to grab a straw man, knock it down (without proving it wrong), and then lump all Christians in it.  NO ONE IS GOING TO HEAVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. No one who believes the Bible thinks that. Even Camping is not that dumb and he's got a lot of theological problems.

• The Christian bible is supposed to be the ultimate source of authority, and to many of the more extreme, the only source of authority. It's got 'bible codes' in it; it's a rich vein of numerological bullshit to be mined; it's vagued, confused, ambiguous, and contradictory, a refuse heap of tribal gobbledygook hallowed by nothing other than long ages of accumulation. Our minds try desperately to find pattern and meaning in what we observe around us, and the best source to trigger all kinds of lunatic pattern generating theories is a nearly totally incoherent mass of text with huge cultural signposts pointing at it and screaming that it is important.
  It's like being told that a tangled, confusing clump of jungle, all bewildering with shadow and random shapes slashing across it, is the home of a fierce tiger that will kill you if you get close. Stare hard at it, and you can convince yourself that there is something dangerous lurking there, even if it contains no animal larger than a rabbit.

Bible codes and numerology "gobbledygook" is what makes the Bible confused, ambiguous, and contradictory,. This is what Camping has done, not what Biblical Christianity is. Meyer makes a lot of broad generalizations with no proof.   He describes Camping's  errors "doctrine" very well but doesn't really seem to have a handle at all what the Bible says salvation is or who Jesus is and why it's important. Pathetically, neither does Camping.

Sure, everyone is laughing at Harold Camping now, except his followers, who are undeterred. But you're missing the real joke. Look at every Abrahamic religion, with their myths of prophets and favored peoples and fate. Look at the crazy conservative church in your town, that preaches homophobia and anti-science and supports Israel because of the Armageddon prophecy. Look at the liberal Christian church down the street from you that has the nice Vacation Bible School and puts on happy plays for the older kids, and also teaches that one day you will stand before a great god and be judged. Look at your family members who blithely believe in death as a mini-apocalypse, in which they will be magically translated into another realm, again to be judged.

 "Magic" has nothing to do with it. Again, pointing to Camping is really bad example of what Christians believe and think. If you read the Bible like he does no wonder you think that the Bible is useless. All you have to do is read it. Look at it in the same way you read anything from a historical, cultural,  and plain context and you cannot get out of it what Meyer or  Camping get out of the Bible.  Meyer revealed he doesn't care What Jesus said,. Then how do you know Camping is wrong or anyone for that matter is wrong?   Without a standard, you can't know. Harold Camping makes an awful standard.

It's the very same rot, the poison of religion that twists minds away from reality and fastens them on hellish bogeymen. They're demented fuckwits, every one, and the big lie rests right on the fundamental beliefs of supernaturalism and deities, not on the ephemera of one crank's bizarre interpretations.
And to the next person who quotes Matthew 24:36 at me: you're part of the problem, too.

Did  Camping lie about what the Bible says? Yup. It's stupid and unscientific to throw the Bible under the proverbial bus based on his lie.   Meyer already had the conclusion that the Bible was a lie before May 21 2011 and he is using Camping to validate that belief.  The logical problem is that according to the Bible  Camping is liar n and stands condemned.  Meyer is standing with him also condemned.  But if we repent of our sin and put our trust in Jesus Christ we will not be condemned with Camping.

Wrong, root and branch; wrong at every cell and molecule; wrong to the core : Pharyngula

Related articles

• What Direction Do We Point People Towards? (missionmusings.wordpress.com)
• D'oh! We should have known! (scienceblogs.com)
• Harold Camping says now that Oct. 21st will be judgement day (smacktalkradio.wordpress.com)
• Harold Camping: May 21 Judgment Day Did Happen (newsfeed.time.com)
• Harold Camping: Judgment Day Did Actually Happen Saturday (newsfeed.time.com)
• Harold Camping Predicts Rapture Will Now Be Oct. 21 (kaystreet.wordpress.com)

Philip Greenspun's Weblog » Book of Mormon: South Park takes on theodicy

Philip Greenspun wrote a short review on a play that satires the Book of  Mormon by the creators of South Park. the thing that caught my interest was that the play deals heavy in Theodicy. The reason I'm calling attention to this is because of one of the comments, in which the reader affirms and defends Mormonism. He defends the most esoteric and Biblical contradicting views ascribed to Mormonism. Most young Mormons you talk to now haven't heard this stuff let-alone defend it.  I think it would be good to look at what the man says and hold it up against the Bible. My comments are in red.


Or better yet, the evening could be spent reading The Book of Mormon!
I haven’t seen the musical, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) theology brings several interesting things to the question of theodicy.

I've always wondered how Mormonism handled the issues Theodicy raises.

First it recognizes God’s omnipotence is limited, both by natural laws and his respecting our agency (freedom to choose actions, not consequences). For instance, on the natural law side, when God creates things, he does not do it ex-nihilo (see first law of thermodynamics) but through the process of organizing existing matter (or energy). Also, God will not force us to be good, he respects our freedom of choice, which is not to say there are no consequences for wrong choices or that he won’t help us to be good.

Limited omnipotence is not omnipotence. God cannot be bound  by natural laws because God created natural laws. Mormonism rejects the idea of God creating all reality out of nothing (ex-nihilo) and flies against what we know of from Physics. All of matter, time, space, natural laws like the laws of Thermodynamics, and energy came into being from the "Big Bang". God did more than just organize all of it, he created it. The Bible tells us that there is nothing that exists that God did not create. 

³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 

- John 1:3

We don't have the ability to be good on our own. All of our goodness comes from God himself. 

For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. - Romans 7:18

Paul wrote most of the New Testament. He wasn't just talking about himself but all of us too.

Second, many people suffer on earth, but when you understand The Plan of Salvation (described in The Book of Mormon) it is put into perspective, both that we all knew what we were getting into when coming to earth and that earth life (and the suffering here) is only a very small part of our existence, and that it helps us progress in two fundamental ways.

I once asked a Mormon missionary to show me where this is in the Bible - that we knew what about what life on earth was going to be like before we were born. He couldn't. The Bible clearly teaches that God knew of us..,planned us...but it's about God's sovereign will not ours. 

¹⁸ I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. ¹⁹ For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
 ²² We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. ²³ Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. ²⁴ For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? ²⁵ But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

- Romans 8:18-25

It's not that we don't have wills of our own, but God's will supersedes ours. Given that we are not able to even desire God on our own. If God does not replace our hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, there is no way we can be saved. God saves us despite ourselves. If He doesn't change us against our wills, we can't be saved.

 ⁵ Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ⁶ The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. ⁷ The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. ⁸ Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.- Romans 8:5-8

We all existed before birth as spirits and lived with our Heavenly Father before coming to earth, in fact before earth even existed. We were different from him in several ways, two being that he had an exalted body and he was more righteous than us. He presented a plan to us where by we could become more like him, and it consisted of us leaving his presence for a while by being born into mortality here on earth where we’d receive a body and be tried and tested and (hopefully) learn to choose the right.

And this is in the Bible where?!? The question here is what do you do if your theology conflicts with what the Bible says? The Book of Mormon disagrees with the Bible. They both can't be right. This is a different "plan of salvation" than the Bible presents to us.

All of us would sometimes choose the wrong and eventually die, losing our bodies, so a central part of our Heavenly Father’s plan was Jesus Christ and his mission to live a perfect life and save us from sin and from death through his Atonement and his Resurrection. Anyway, after resurrection, where we receive a glorified immortal body, we continue to live and progress. Originally when this plan was presented we knew that there would be opposition and pain here on earth, both by nature (earthquakes, floods, famine, etc) and by the choices of other men (rape, etc). Despite these chances for suffering, we believed out Heavenly Father that benefits we would receive from mortal life were much greater, and chose to come to earth. 1/3 of the spirits followed Lucifer and rebelled against God, Jesus Christ, and his plan and were expelled from his presence, yielding devils and all that jazz. Anyway, some friends are waiting on me to go out to dinner so there’s tons more check http://mormon.org
 
Mormons and Christians agree that Jesus is the way for salvation. We agree that Jesus lived a perfect life (free from sin) and He saves us from and death. However we mean very different things by "Atonement". We also mean very different things by what "eternal life" means. For a Christian it doesn't mean that a man becomes a god of his own planet over people living with his spirit lives, producing children. Considering the comment, it appears that the one who wrote it would agree, but that is not what orthodox Christianity teaches because it's not in the Bible. The Bible and the Book of Mormon can't both be true simultaneously. I've posted this video before but it appears that the commenter would have to agree with it as authentic Mormonism.

What Mormon Theology Is Really All About
Tags: What Mormon Theology Is Really All About

Philip Greenspun's Weblog » Book of Mormon: South Park takes on theodicy

FacePalm of the Day #35 - Debunking Christianity: The Free Will Fumble: Why Christians Treat it Just Like They do With Unanswered Prayer

John Loftus again provides an example of why it nearly always results in a FacePalm when atheists attempt to discuss "Free Will". I keep hoping to find an example of an atheist explaining "Free Will" well. I have provided Loftus' post with my comments in red.

Christians have developed so many ways to escape the force of the evidence that it’s frustrating to those of us who are trying to reason with them. I’ve written about several of them before. There is the big one I call The Omniscience Escape Clause. Another one I haven’t quite developed yet I call The Faith Trump Card, which is leaping beyond the actual probabilities of the evidence itself. No reasonable person can leap beyond what the evidence calls for. If Christians conclude it’s 51% probable Jesus arose from the dead then they simply cannot conclude they know he did. That’s an unjustified leap. If I thought it’s 51% probable the Colts will play in the Super Bowl and win it this year (fat chance) I would be ignorant to say I know this will happen, especially enough to bet all my meager life savings on it (which is zilch).

I sure would like to know what Christian told Loftus that they thought that Jesus' Resurrection was 51% probable. I would think that anyone who gave their life to Christ would think that the evidence for the Resurrection was better than just a  51% probability!

Then there’s something I focused on in my book, Why I Became an Atheist, which I’ll call Punting to the Possible. Time after time when confronted with an intractable problem for their faith Christians will respond by saying that it’s still possible their god exists, or that Jesus arose from the dead, or that a donkey talked. When it comes to the problem of evil they’ll say it’s not impossible that god is good despite the weight of evidence. That is, unless we can prove their god doesn’t exist then they can go on their merry way believing. But this is unreasonable, utterly unreasonable. Who in their right mind would require that a skeptic must prove a god doesn’t exist? The Mormons use the same tactic by saying that despite the evidence to the contrary it’s still possible their god exists. Of course it is. It’s just very very improbable.

Anyone who checks out the evidence for the Book of Mormon and compare that against the Bible one must honestly come to one inescapable conclusion: They both can't be true. They are in contradiction with one another. This means that only one of them can be completely true or both of them are not true. Now because the evidence supports the Bible and goes against the Book of Mormon, it's not even a contest.  The Bible has better credentials and attestation. Reality attests to the Bible's validity. Loftus attempting to equate the evidence for  Mormonism with historic Christianity is truly an epic fail. Does it make sense to say the miraculous cannot happen?  Nope.

Now we have what I’ll call The Free Will Fumble. Someone fumbles the ball so to speak on an important play and Christians will attribute it to free will. After all, they’ll opine, their god doesn’t want to coerce people to obey or to believe. So there’s murder and mayhem in the streets? No problem. “People have free will,” is the answer (a libertarian will say this). A Christian loses his or her faith? Again, no problem. God doesn’t coerce faith.

Here is the problem with Loftus argument: "Free Will", from a Biblical Standpoint, is an illusion. We are incapable of  not sinning. That means that we are not free to act or not to act otherwise. We are enslaved to sin. We sin in thought, word, and deed. This is not saying that we don't make choices. Apart from God, we can only choose what sins we will and not commit up to a point. We are condemned. Given all that we have have no way to be really free apart from Jesus. God doesn't coerce faith - He gives it to you.

But when someone does something good then god gets the credit. God inspired Handel to create "The Messiah." Praise god for this! Someone found my wallet and returned it. Thanks ya Jesus. God granted us safety for our trip from any potential muggers out there. God is good. My boss gave me a raise. Hallelujah.
Just look what’s going on here. Christians are treating these actions exactly as they do with unanswered prayer. They are counting the hits and discounting the misses. If Christians want to opine that their god doesn’t coerce us, then be consistent. Does he or doesn’t he? In the Bible there are several characters who were convinced by god to believe, like Moses, Gideon, Mary & Joseph, and Saul of Tarsus, apparently without abrogating their free will. So which is it? Can god do this or not, and if he can do this with them why not me, or anyone else?

When we do good of course God gets the credit! There is no good in us. We have no hits apart from God - all we can do is miss. God has to move all of us who become believers to believe. We are not capable to believe on our own. God has done and given you everything you need to believe. He put you in the right place at the right time for you to best find Him. So of course the obvious question is why haven't people like Loftus found him? It's not like God's hiding. The Bible says that those who miss God love their sins more than they love God.

Scientific studies on prayer have consistently shown that petitionary prayer doesn’t work. The evidence is against prayer. And the evidence is against god’s actions in this world through people too. I mean, really, can god answer any prayers that involve the actions of other people? If he can, then why isn’t there evidence that he does (beyond anecdotal evidence, which is no evidence at all)? And if he can’t, then how in the world can he answer any of these prayers, or to be praised when someone does something we prayed for?

Not all scientific studies on prayer reach those conclusion so Loftus over reaches yet again. At least he got the part about how God can't answer many prayers without making behave and think in ways they might not ordinarily think or do. I mean when he keeps a pedophile from raping a child he's acting against that person's free will, for example. When God makes the burglar bypass your house, God messed with that person's will. God is not beholden to anyone for anything. He can choose to allow or stop anything he wants to do.

Free will becomes an excuse for a God that does nothing. The Free Will Fumble is yet just another excuse for an incompetent god. I mean really, what can God do if we have free will?

God is not incompetent. Loftus just doesn't know God is doing and why He does the things He does. All humans are in that boat. The difference is that Believers trust God. We know that we can trust him to do the right thing - the just thing. Let's talk about "fair" for a moment.  Do you really want God to be "fair" or do you want His mercy. Given that we all deserve hell - I'll take mercy.


Debunking Christianity: The Free Will Fumble: Why Christians Treat it Just Like They do With Unanswered Prayer

FacePalm Quote of the Day #13: Jesus' Resurrection, Debunked in One Page.pdf - Google Docs

John Loftus pointed out a page by Chris Hallquist in which he gives 8 points for why he does not believe that the Resurrection did not happen. Hallquist seems to think that he has compelling and gripping evidence against the Resurrection but frankly there is nothing new here in the slightest. Here is his list

Jesus' Resurrection, Debunked in One Page.pdf - Google Docs
I have my own list. It's really nothing new these "objection" have been brought up and refuted many times before.
1. Christianity's endurance for the past 2000 years is evidence that Jesus indeed was raised from the dead. Why? Simple Christianity is based on extraordinary claims those claims would have had to believed beyond doubt enough for people to completely change their lives. Look, neither Paul and James believed Jesus was Resurrected until they met the Resurrected Christ. IT changed their lives. Meeting Jesus today continues to change lives. There are few examples of historical sources from antiquity being dated within a century of when the events took place.
2. Hallquist is being disingenuous. Not all Biblical scholars think that there is every good reason to believe that the names of the authors attached to the Gospels wrote those Gospels.
3. Hallquist may think that the Gospels are mere anonymous tracts but many scholars disagree with him. On top of that the New Testament, including the Gospels, were written too early after the events to be explained away as legendary.
4. Paul knew several (if not all) of the witnesses he mentions personally! I'm familiar with the claims of the Book of Mormon and they are in no way equal to the miracles Jesus did. In addition, The Bible doesn't tell use to believe anything solely on the basis of Miracles. See Deuteronomy 13. Demons do miracle too.
5. Jesus disciples were in the perfect situation and circumstances to know if what they were preaching were true. I think it is strong evidence that they believed that what they were saying is true. If Jesus did not rise...there still would have been a body 50 days after the crucifixion why not just produce it? Simple. Everyone who was there at Pentecost knew the tomb was empty.
6 and 7. I'm going to cover the hallucination hypothesis this way. None of the apostles believed that Jesus rose even though he told them he would. The last thing they expected was to see Jesus alive again. Granted one might argue that Peter and the boys would be comforted by such an hallucination, but that does not explain Paul, James, or Jude who never believed Jesus before they met Jesus after the Resurrection.
Point 8 is just a commercial...and not a good one.
I'm amazed that people keep bringing up these objections and can't see how bad they are. I mean where is the "A" material?

A list of over 700 inconsistencies in the Bible From www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

Many of the atheists I've spoken to on Twitter/Facebook/and blogs are using a single source for contradictions in religious books. They are using the Skeptic's Annotated Bible /Quran / Book of Mormon  website. It's a searchable and indexed site for finding "problem passages" - you know magic bullets they think they can use to substantiate their rejection of God. They tell themselves the Bible is wrong.  One of the things they make available on their site is a 45 page list claiming 700 contradictions in the Bible - organized according to the books of the Bible. They don't hold any water. I'm planning a series of posts responding to those passages that I have not discussed on this blog.



bible-inconsistencies.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Hank Hanegraaff - The Book of Mormon: Not Another Testament

Image via Wikipedia

Hank Hanegraaff posted a great summary of why classic Mormonism can't be considered a Christian denomination. The information he points out I have heard and read in other sources. I've also seen primary sources such as the Book of Mormon saying the same thing he says it says. I think Hanegraaff's post is important because some people rationalize their rejection of Christ by thinking that the Bible and Christianity are confused messes with no discernible clear message. It's a placebo people use so that they don't have deal with what Jesus said. If there is no way to know what Gospel really is because there are no core and consistent beliefs of Christianity that the first Christians adhered to. This is a lie. There are clear differences that make a Christian a Christian and not something else. If that is not true then words have no meaning. Hank does a great job summarizing why Mormonism does not have those differences.

Hank Hanegraaff - The Book of Mormon: Not Another Testament

Book of Mormon Archaeology: Where is it? - posted by Daniel Carter (darwinisdeadJesuslives) - tangle.com

Here are two great videos asking one basic question: Is there archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I don't have exhaustive knowledge, but if any one would like to suggest conflicting evidence, please comment on this post and I will post that data.









Book of Mormon Archaeology: Where is it? - posted by Daniel Carter (darwinisdeadJesuslives) - tangle.com

Ebon Musings: Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

Image via Wikipedia

Here is a  an article   I found in a tweet from godlessgirl. She suggests that this is a ninteresting article about hell. I think it would be fun to interact with it. My comments will be red.

The doctrine of Hell

"So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
--The Bible, Matthew 13:40-50 (KJV)

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..."
--The Bible, Revelation 14:10-11 (KJV)

"But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; and for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning."
--The Qur'an, sura 22:19-22

"Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment."
--The Qur'an, sura 4:56

"O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment."
--The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:19

"Depart, ye cursed, to whom everlasting wrath and ruin belong, who are by your own wickedness prepared for nothing else, but to be firebrands of hell, who are the fit objects and vessels of the vengeance and fury of the Almighty, into fire. He will not send them away merely into a loathsome prison, the receptacle of the filth and rubbish of the universe, but into a furnace of fire. That must be their dwelling-place, there they must be tormented with the most racking pain and anguish. It is everlasting fire. There is eternity in the sentence, which infinitely aggravates the doom, and will make every word of it immensely more dreadful, sinking, and amazing to the souls that receive it."
--Jonathan Edwards, "The Final Judgment"

"You are going to see again the child about which you read in the Terrible Judgement, that it was condemned to hell. See! It is a pitiful sight. The little child is in this red hot oven. Hear how it screams to come out. See how it turns and twists itself about in the fire. It beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its little feet on the floor of the oven. You can see on the face of this little child what you see on the faces of all in hell - despair, desperate and horrible!"
--John Furniss, "The Sight of Hell"

"At certain revolutions all the damned
Are brought; and feel by turns the bitter change
Of fierce extremes, extremes by change more fierce,
From beds of raging fire to starve in ice
Their soft ethereal warmth, and there to pine
Immovable, infixed, and frozen round
Periods of time, - thence hurried back to fire."
--John Milton, Paradise Lost, book 2

At least the author of the article is trying to cover Christianity, Mormons, and the thoughts of people concerning hell,.

Before the advent of Christianity, Judaism was vague on the notion of what awaited us after death. Some verses in the Old Testament seem to teach annihilation, non-existence for good and evil alike. Others imply that we will all experience temporary oblivion, but the righteous will be resurrected by God on Judgment Day, while everyone else will stay dead. Yet others point to the existence of some shadowy realm called Sheol from which the spirits of the dead could be summoned and contacted. The doctrine of Hell first began to arise near the end of the Old Testament era, but it took Jesus Christ to fully codify and formalize it as a part of Christian doctrine, from which it migrated into monotheistic religions in general. As this great moral teacher explained it, Hell is a dreadful lake of fire where all those who disobey God will go when they die, to suffer and be tormented eternally with no hope of escape.

I think the article could have been strengthened if the author had given scriptural references of the Old Testament references that imply all these various notions, but since he seems to want to focus on the New Testament, I will too.

It is difficult to keep a clear head and not get angry when discussing this doctrine. Hell is by far the worst religious idea that human beings have ever invented; certainly, in terms of the sheer amount of cruelty one person can wish inflicted on another, it is by definition unsurpassed. Nor are the effects of this belief limited to theists passively wishing this fate upon their enemies regardless of what happens in this world. As Thomas Paine said, belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man, and many religious atrocities committed through the centuries can, directly or indirectly, be traced to belief in Hell. (For examples, see this post from Positive Liberty.) Thus, it is for the sake of this life - the only one anyone can ever know for certain that they have - that it is important to expose this vicious falsehood for what it is. By accepting this doctrine for the sake of argument, this essay will show that it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.

What amazes me is the anger the idea of hell brings. I mean why get angry? Disagree all you want, but why should you get angry about it? I'll save my answer for this for later.

Before going any further, it should be pointed out that this essay will only address the conception of Hell as eternal torment. Views of Hell which depict it as a temporary state will not be addressed here. This is not unfair or a straw man for the simple reason that a great many believers in multiple religious traditions specifically do claim that Hell is eternal, and are supported by their own sacred texts in this. This is shown by several of the quotes above. The Christian Bible depicts the damned as having "no rest day or night". The Islamic Qur'an says that inhabitants of Hell are driven back into the fire whenever they would seek reprieve, and further reinforces this with verses such as 2:162 and 2:167, which specifically deny that Hell is temporary. The Book of Mormon describes Hell as "endless torment". In light of these verses, adherents of these traditions who deny that Hell is eternal must first deal with the evidence from their own holy scriptures. Conversely, theists who do not believe that there is a Hell, or that God would send anyone there permanently if there was, are encouraged to read "God Is Love" rather than this essay.

I agree that the Bible teaches that hell is eternal. So at least we can agree on that. I am going to further restrict myself to only Biblical Christianity for my comments.

The first argument against the existence of Hell is the simplest and most effective: Where is the proof that there is such a place? Until theists produce the evidence, there is no reason whatsoever to believe anyone who claims it exists. The mere fact that a large number of people believe in such a place proves precisely nothing if those people cannot point to the empirical evidence that convinced them in the first place, nor do hallucinations occasionally experienced by people in near-death states indicate the existence of anything outside the mind. In addition, there is positive evidence against the existence of such a place: as neurological evidence suggests, the best explanation for the functioning of the mind requires only the physical structure of the brain. It is highly unlikely that the source of consciousness is an immaterial soul, and thus it is highly unlikely that there is any part of us that survives our physical death and goes on to an afterlife, hellish or otherwise. Until theists who believe in such a state can supply the hard evidence to back up their claims, we can and should feel free to dismiss them as utterly without foundation.

What about the assertion that "It is highly unlikely that the source of consciousness is an immaterial soul, and thus it is highly unlikely that there is any part of us that survives our physical death and goes on to an afterlife, hellish or otherwise." Where is the proof? It's just stuck out there. My point is that the structure of the brain does not tell us why a human is conscious. We are not even really sure what consciousness or self-awareness really is aside from the fact that merely posing the question means we have it. Does one really want to argue that human personality and consciousness are just a function of neural chemical processes? How? Why? Therefore denying the existence of the human spirit/soul seems silly. As for asking for proof that hell exists as a physical place, let's assume it does exist for the purpose of continuing the discussion. A more formal proof will require arguing for the validity of the Bible as a trustworthy source, and I'll save that for later.

Although there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of such a place as Hell, that has not stopped fundamentalists from appealing to it in an attempt to frighten people into converting. In fact, rather than present a reasoned argument, they often go to great lengths to describe it in terms as horrible and terrifying as possible, in an attempt to provoke an emotional response rather than a rational one - to override reason with unreasoning fear. Fire-and-brimstone sermonizing such as the passages quoted at the beginning of this essay has been used for this purpose since the inception of the doctrine of Hell, as religious fanatics throughout history have delighted in imagining ever more grotesque and horrible tortures for those they view as God's enemies. While the Bible only alludes to furnaces of fire, outer darkness, undying worms and wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Qur'an adds many gruesome details to its much more explicit depiction of Hell. In the Islamic conception of the underworld, the damned are forced to wear garments of fire, boiling water as hot as molten brass is poured on their heads, their skin is melted and burned off, and they are beaten with iron hooks. Not to be outdone, Christian poets such as Dante Alighieri (author of the Inferno) pictured a Hell where the condemned are boiled in excrement or blood, where demons continually hack their bodies into pieces, where they are imprisoned in blazing sepulchres or frozen up to their necks in ice gnawing on each other's skulls. An English clergyman named John Furniss penned an even more horribly graphic pamphlet, quoted above, in which he depicted even children and unbaptized infants as suffering every manner of agonizing torture. Across the Atlantic, American evangelists such as Jonathan Edwards terrified audiences with vivid descriptions of the torments of hellfire.

All these gory descriptions of the suffering of the damned lead to an obvious question: Why would God ever create such a place? What purpose does it serve? How can Hell possibly be compatible with God's attributes, which all the major monotheistic religions insist on, of benevolence, justice and mercy?

I think that here is were the crux of the disconnect is. The argument is that a benevolent, just, and merciful God would not send people to such a terrible place as hell. The thought is that I, nor anyone is that bad as to deserve to be punished for eternity. The thought is that every human being is basically "good"...we just sometimes do bad things.

Imagine how much hatred you would have to have for another person to take his hand and press it against a hot stove, and hold it there while he struggles and screams in pain. Now imagine, not just burning a person's hand, but setting his entire body on fire; and now imagine doing it not just for a few moments, not for hours or days or years or millennia, but forever; and now imagine tormenting not just one, but thousands, millions, billions of people like this, inflicting on each and every one of them a suffering beyond imagination or description, for every single instant without rest or relief throughout all the endless span of eternity. And this is the work of a good god?

This is a poor analogy to hell. To make it more like what Christianity actually holds what should have been written is that a person - of his own free will - is given the choice to not step in the fire but just submit to God and serve him or walk into the fire. Those who go to hell chose to walk into the fire.

Some theists say that God loves us and cares about us more deeply than we can imagine; and then turn around and say that he is ready at a moment's notice to hurl into endless agony anyone who did not worship him exactly as he directed. This is a hopelessly self-contradictory set of beliefs. If there is such a place as Hell, it could not possibly be the creation of any being worthy of the appellations "loving" or "caring"; it could only be the work of an evil, sadistic monster. Theists who are unwilling to grant that there could be such a being are therefore faced with a choice: give up belief in Hell, or give up belief in God altogether.

Huge problem with this thought. God has a standard. You can't be on the fence.  You are either in His will or out of his will. If you are out of his will you are going to hell. If you are in his will you are going to heaven. It's an absolute. How is it self-contradictory that if you don't meet the standard? How is that unfair? It's like gravity on a certain level. If you step off a cliff  is it gravity's fault when you fall off the cliff?  No it's not. However God loves us so much that he has given us a way to avoid walking off that cliff and because we can't fly he will carry us to safety. This is what salvation is about. No one can meet that standard on his/her own. This is why Jesus came and died in our place..

There is another problem with the doctrine of Hell, which is as follows: No deed that a human being could possibly commit merits such a punishment. It is stressed by virtually all religions that God is just, but it is a fundamental part of justice that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and Hell is, by definition, infinitely disproportionate when compared to any human act. No matter how monstrous a person was in life, no matter how evil their crimes, they can only have inflicted a finite amount of harm, and no finite sin can deserve an infinite amount of punishment. Even when a damned soul has suffered as much pain as they inflicted on others during their life, we are told, the torture continues. Even when that soul has been paid back, pain for pain, a hundred times over, or a thousand times, or a million, they continue to suffer. Every damned soul will eventually suffer as much pain as every innocent victim of every evil act in the entire history of the Earth combined, and still their punishment will continue without end. This is not fair - this is an outrageous injustice. Again, believers in a just and fair god cannot hold this belief alongside belief in an afterlife of eternal torment, not without contradicting themselves. The only intellectually consistent route is to deny that there is such a realm, or such a being, or both.

Actually that article is being intellectually inconsistent. The argument is made that our sins are finite therefore we don't deserve infinite punishment. Only a mind who does not understand how truly horrific sin is contrasted with God's holiness could possibly make such an argument. The Biblical position holds that you and I deserve to go to hell. We sin continually. We sin constantly sometimes without even realizing. Forget the times we sin  on purpose. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved should we find ourselves in hell. Also why would you think that sins stop in hell? Does it make sense that everyone in hell will stop being evil just because they are in hell? I don't think  so. Hell will be full of people eternally quarantined from God and His people. The people in hell did not want God and then they will get their desire fulfilled.

Some apologists have put forth a defense against this argument, claiming that because God is infinitely good, a person who chooses to defy him is committing an "infinite crime" and therefore deserves an infinity of suffering as punishment. But consider: What does it mean to commit a crime against someone? Does the essence of a crime not lie in harm? Not all harm done to a person rises to the standard of a crime, but it cannot be said that you have committed a crime against someone if they have not been harmed in any way. But God, by his nature, can never be harmed. According to the monotheistic religions, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect; he lacks nothing, he needs nothing, and certainly he cannot be injured or diminished in any way by anything a human being could ever do. Therefore, it is impossible to commit any crime against him at all, much less an infinite one. We may harm ourselves, or other people, but we can never harm God, and it defies justice to pay back an act that causes zero harm with an act that causes infinite harm.

The Bible teaches that all sin is against God. It's not about harming God it's about disobeying and disrespecting him. Sinners going to hell is not pay back for sins against God it's justice because it is an affront to His nature. It's like how light encroaches and vanquishes darkness. They cannot coexist forever. Light will overwhelm the darkness.

The apologist argument of disbelief as an infinite crime can be refuted in another way. For justice to be served, the punishment for a crime should be set not only by considering the consequences of the act, but also by considering the intent and level of understanding of the person who commits it. This is why, for example, most societies punish minors less harshly than they would adults who committed the same crime, or why they generally treat rather than punish people who commit a crime while operating under a sense of diminished capacity that makes them less able to tell right from wrong.

The relevance is this. In God's sight, compared to God's mind, are we adults or are we minors? Do theists believe that people who reject God understand exactly what they are doing? Is it possible for anyone with a finite mind to fully comprehend the repercussions of such an act? It is said that rejection of God is an infinite crime, but can a human being really commit a crime that great even if they want to, even if they think they mean it at the time? While Hell-believing theists will undoubtedly answer "yes" to these latter three questions, I suggest that those answers arise from their a priori beliefs rather than a rational and objective evaluation of the situation. Such an evaluation is far more likely to come to the opposite answer.

There are degrees of punishments in hell. Someone who sinned in ignorance and did not know as much as another will not experience that same torment as one who knew and understood better.

 ⁴⁷"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. ⁴⁸But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked. - :Luke 12: 47-48

Fair enough? Good!

This becomes even more acute when one considers that the length of the afterlife, in most major religious traditions, is believed to be eternity. The human mind is finite and thus, by definition, cannot fully comprehend such a span of time. How can it be fair to force beings as limited as us to make decisions that will influence our fate for an infinity thereafter and only allow us an infinitesimally short length of time to choose? This would be analogous to parents deciding how they will relate to their child for the rest of his life based on his behavior up until the age of two years old. If at some point during those first two years the child threw a tantrum and screamed "I hate you" at his parents, would the appropriate response be for them to throw him out of the house, disown him completely and never speak to him again for the rest of his life? Just as no two-year-old child could possibly be expected to have the perspective to make decisions that would be best for the rest of his finite life, so too could no finite human being be fairly expected to be able to make the best decisions for the rest of an infinite life. The conclusion remains the same: only an infinite being can commit an infinite crime.

Again a bad analogy. God does not write you off after one sin but you don't know how much time you have before you run out of opportunities to accept God'a offer of salvation.

Even assuming none of the preceding holds true, another question remains to be answered: Why can't you repent in Hell and be released? What happens if one of the damned says, "I can't take this anymore. I understand now that I sinned and I'm sorry. God, please forgive me and let me out of here"? Will this work? If not, why not? If there's a rule that says it's too late to repent once you're in Hell, who made that rule and why?

God made that rule and by definition no one in hell would repent and worship God even if they could get out. They wouldn't do it before they went to hell why would they change. If you end up in hell it is because you rejected God.  Now that you have what you want why belly ache? Yes, you could argue that you didn't understand the repercussions of the decisions they made in life, but does that matter? Anyone reading this has made up their minds. They understand that the Bible teaches that rejecting Jesus means they are going to hell. They have no excuse. Believe or don't believe. The consequences are on your head. I hope you choose to believe and put your faith in Jesus that way you don't have to worry about going to hell because then you can repair your relationship with God.

Some theists might say that God does not allow this because, in this case, people would be repenting just to escape further punishment, not because they were genuinely sorry. If this is the case, then shouldn't he also condemn people who repented on Earth only because they were afraid of Hell? Shouldn't he also condemn people who repented on Earth because of some personal tragedy or catastrophe that befell them? Yet no religions I am aware of teach that God will do this; if anything, most monotheistic religions teach that such occurrences are very salutary in bringing people closer to God and making them realize their dependence on him. If God wants everyone to be saved, if he accepts repentance motivated by personal catastrophe on Earth, and if he accepts repentance motivated by fear of Hell while on Earth, then a declaration that God will not forgive anyone once they are in Hell cannot be seen as anything other than arbitrary and irrational. Such a declaration would be motivated not by any real reason or logical necessity, but by the desire of that religion to secure earthly power by coercing and frightening people into allegiance.

People who repent and follow Christ only to escape hell may never develop a true heart and love for God. These people become apostates and never really were saved. Given enough time no one remains a Christian just because they are afraid of going to hell.

In the preceding paragraphs of this essay, I have argued that the doctrine of Hell is, in multiple aspects, starkly incompatible with the attributes of benevolence, justice, love, mercy and rationality attributed to God by mainstream monotheistic religions. It cannot logically be a part of a system that includes belief in such a god. This will, of course, not affect those theists who believe in an irrational or evil god; to these, I simply reiterate my argument that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of either such a place or such a being. In either case, the doctrine of Hell must be rejected.

The author's definitions for "benevolence, justice, love, mercy and rationality" are not consistent given what the Bible says about  God's benevolence, justice, love, mercy and rationality.

In light of these arguments, I will again raise the question asked earlier. Since the doctrine of Hell, as it is formulated in monotheistic religions, defies so many of God's attributes, one must ask why these religions believe in it at all. Why is there any need for such a place?

The most common apologist reply to this is that God has "no choice". To refuse to worship him is to sin, and loving though he may be he cannot allow sin into Heaven; therefore, he had no choice but to create a Hell where he could send those who die in their sins. This argument, however, is plainly ridiculous. Of course God, if there is such a being, would have a choice - he is all-powerful, is he not? He can do anything he wants. If he wanted to, he could choose to forgive all people of sin unconditionally and let everyone into Heaven. He could reincarnate people until they get it right, so no one has to be condemned. He could make the people who refuse to worship him cease to exist. Even assuming he could not do any of these things and there must be such a place as Hell where nonbelievers go, there is no reason why it has to be a pit of torture - it could just be a limbo, or a realm basically like Earth, where unbelievers could simply go their own way. But, if we are to believe many theists, despite having all these other options God chose none of them, and instead decreed that those who die without believing in him are condemned, with no forgiveness and no second chance, and made a place of endless torture for them to go to. This idea is such a grotesque absurdity it hardly needs refutation; it is in blatant contradiction to everything else we are supposed to believe about God. Again, if there was such a place as Hell, it could never be the creation of a merciful, loving or just deity, but only of an evil sadist. Only a god who enjoys the torment and suffering of others would create such a place or allow it to exist, yet both atheists and monotheists agree that there is no such god.

I agree that it's a silly argument that God had no choice but to make hell. But it is equally silly to assert that God could not be loving or merciful because Hell exists. The Bible says that God's plan for everything glorifies Himself. If there was no hell we would not be able to observe God's justice in punishing sin or his mercy in saving some of us from hell. The bottom line is if you don't wanna go to hell you don't have to go. All you have to do is submit to Jesus as Lord and Savior -  believe the Word of God and live that way. 

When all the arguments are considered, the true purpose of the doctrine of Hell becomes clear, and it is not a theological but rather a thoroughly practical and earthly one. Hell is, and has never been anything other than, a fiction invented by religions in an attempt to gain power and followers by bludgeoning people into line through threats and fear. As an atheist, I reject this tactic; it is nothing but empty words. Without evidence to back it up, the tattered specter of eternal torment should not sway a rational mind in the least. No one has anything to fear from this myth. The doctrine of Hell is constructed to appeal to the emotions, but collapses when examined by simple conscience or logic.

The doctrine hell is based on pure logic not emotion. If you are not born-again you are going to hell. Pure and simple. Everyone is hellbound from the moment we exist. God provided for us a gift - payment for the debt of sin that we can't pay. Jesus picked up our bill on his tab. The question becomes do you want stand before God on your own merits -  with a heart full of lust and greed -  or to be judged in light of the sinless perfection of  Jesus Christ. Personally, I'll choose the later.

Ebon Musings: Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins