"But You Choose Hell"

Recently on a podcast, someone made a statement that I have heard repeatedly from my Christian friends, “God doesn’t send you to Hell; you choose to go”.  To which I respond, “Bullshit”.  I can tell you right now that I do not choose Hell.  Of course, I wouldn’t choose Heaven either if the prick in the Bible is actually in charge as they claim.  Going to Hell is purely the fault of God.

First, God created Hell.  He could have just had us non-believers wink out of existence after we die, but he didn’t.  Instead, he created a place of eternal torment.  God is responsible for the existence and conditions in Hell.

Second, we are all supposedly born sinners and doomed to Hell unless we repent and accept Jesus.  But why are we born sinners?  Because God decided to not just blame Adam and Eve for disobeying him, but to spread the blame around a little and condemn us all because of their actions; another example of good old fashioned biblical justice.  So, from the moment we are conceived, we are already doomed to Hell.  We can avoid it by accepting Jesus, but the default mode for our existence after death is already predetermined: Hell.  Isn’t that good evidence of a loving god?  He creates a very nasty place that no one would want to go to and then blame everyone for something their ancestors did wrong so that from the moment of birth you are doomed to go there.  There is no true choice.  A true choice would allow you to not play the game in the first place, but you can’t opt out of this one. 

Even for Adam and Eve the game was rigged.  The only way that they could know that disobeying God was wrong was to have knowledge of good and evil; however, the only way to gain that knowledge was to disobey God and eat from the Tree of Knowledge.  They were damned from the beginning and due to God’s version of justice, so were we.  So, no, we do not choose Hell.  Hell is the default position established by God.  I use the term “God” lightly because no being worthy of the name would set up such an immoral system and the idea that Jesus suffered for us and offers us salvation is very warped, not generous.

  

By way of analogy, here is what the God/Jesus/Hell scenario boils down to.   Imagine a ship’s captain kidnaps several people, drugs them, takes them to the middle of the ocean and throws them overboard.  That is the situation that God set up by making Hell the default position.  Now imagine the first mate stands at the bow of the ship and offers to sell everyone a life vest and that the cost of the vest is everything the person owns.  This is Jesus offering salvation by giving up your life and your freedom of thought to him.  In the scenario with the ship’s captain, I know of no one, including my Christian friends,  that would disagree with the fact that the captain is an evil ass, but God/Jesus get a pass from the Christians and are considered loving and worthy of praise.

It is an immoral system that is supposedly in place and we most definitely do not choose Hell, we simply do not choose to believe in or follow despicable monsters from a theological version of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.  Those who do accept this story and consider it good, just, and moral are just as warped as the God their “holy book” describes.

The Fallacy of Absolute, Objective Morality and the Stench of Mercy

Many “persons with religious delusion” talk of an absolute, objective morality and this perfect moral compass is, of course, established by their God.   Absolute morality is an illusion and objective morality is incompatible with their description of their God.   Let’s take the second point first.  If God is the author of this perfect set of moral rules, then it is not objective; it is subjective and totally at the whim of God.  God could just as easily say that rape and murder are good as he could condemn them.   Some would argue that God would not be so arbitrary and that God can only do good, but if God can only do good, then he is not omnipotent as it is claimed.  There are then things that he cannot do.  Morality cannot be objective and God omnipotent at the same time; the two are incompatible.

If morality were absolute, then whatever applied to us, would also apply to God; if it did not, it wouldn’t be absolute.  Here is where God’s morality really starts to show its true colors.  In the “Ten Commandments”, it states: “ Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), but there is no clarification.  Does this mean to absolutely not kill anything, ever?  No other humans, no animals, no plants, etc.?  It is not very clear, but let us assume that it only refers to other human beings.   Is this an absolute moral imperative?  Can we not defend ourselves?  Can we not kill in times of war?  Obviously, God does not hold this to be an absolute moral law because he not only commands the destruction of whole societies, he kills everyone on the planet (almost) all by himself.  He also established the laws for stoning people to death for such minor offenses as picking up sticks on his “day of rest”.  

The “Ten Commandments” also require that we “honor our mother and father” and yet Jesus would have us turn on our own parents as these two verses in Matthew demonstrate:

10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Clearly, setting a child against the parent is not honoring them.  God, or his alter-ego Jesus, clearly seems to be able to defy the very rules (the framework of absolute, objective morality) that they themselves created - so much for absolute morality.

There are various other instances throughout the Bible where it is clear that morality is not objective, for example, women are not treated equally in many cases, so the application of this morality is not absolute or objective, but subjective relative to the parties involved.

What happens if you violate these so called moral imperative laid down by this capricious God?  You will find that God’s justice is just as fluid as his morality.  God does not operate on a concept of justice, or so I was told by my Christian friends, he works through mercy.  Viewing the Bible and seeing the reprehensible character of God, it makes perfect sense.  God is all about power and mercy functions from a place of power, by definition.  Only those that wield power over you in some manner can show you mercy.   Mercy is an egotistical demonstration of power, of strength over weakness, of advantage over disadvantage.  It is ignorance that mistakes it for compassion.  It is most definitely not compassion.  Compassion works through empathy and an attempt to truly understand the plight of person to whom it is shown.  Mercy is purely selfish.  It is the granting of leniency as a demonstration of power and false sympathy.

If God truly operated on a basis of absolute, objective morality, then it would include an objective and unbiased evaluation of our “sins”, our transgressions.  Such a review would be guided by fairness, punishments that fit the crimes.  Similar acts of aggression or mistreatment of others would be viewed in an equal manner with similar requirements for rehabilitation and reconciliation.  There would be no bias based on what you believed or didn’t believe, but you would be judged solely on what you did or didn’t do.  However, according to my Christian friends, I am wrong to think this way.  I am mistaken to believe that the mass murderer that turns to God on his deathbed will be judged more harshly than the generous, compassionate atheist.  All that matters to God is belief in Him and only through that will He show mercy.  Well, I prefer justice to mercy.  Fairness is attuned to objective morality; mercy is just the false charity of thugs.

If believing in a merciful God, rather than a just God, is a requirement of Christianity then I am glad that I am not a Christian.  If, in the end, it turns out that a God truly does exist, the just God will understand me and at least I will have my day in court.  If a merciful God exists, then I will proudly march to the gates of Hell and plot his demise.

Change Your Life - Prepare for Everything

Would you change your whole life on a possibility?  That’s what many Christians want us to do.  On the possibility that we might be wrong about the existence of a god and Jesus, in particular, they want us to embrace the nothingness of faith and believe. 

Setting aside the ridiculous idea that you can just make yourself believe something at will, they are asking for what they themselves are not doing.    Is it possible that I am wrong and that a god exists? Sure, it’s possible, but I would say not very probable.  Is it possible that the Bible is an accurate reflection of that God and that the story of Jesus is true?  Again, it’s possible, but not likely.  They argue that the risks of being wrong are just too great to ignore and that we should believe in order to save our immortal soul from Hell.  We should totally change our lives to account for this highly improbable possibility because to do otherwise would have consequences that would be unacceptable to us.

 

But do they follow this advice?  No, not when it comes to other highly dangerous and more probable events.  It’s possible that a meteor could come crashing through my ceiling and kill me; it’s unlikely, but possible.  Aliens could land on Earth and take over the planet.  Again, it is not likely, but possible and very deadly.    I could be hit by a bus, catch a fatal disease, or any of an almost infinite list of other unlikely and very deadly possibilities.  All of them are more probable than the existence of a god or the discovery that the Bible is true.  But do we or they totally alter our lives to ensure that none of these items will affect us or at least do what is necessary to minimize the negative results?  Do we prepare for the worst of every improbable event, “Just in case”?  No.  Instead, we make an informal analysis of the risk and take reasonable precautions based on the probability of the event and the gruesomeness of the consequences.

Given the horrific outcome of my afterlife should I be wrong about their buddy Jesus, you would think that the answer might be “yes” and that I would change.  But the probability of God/Jesus is so remote that it isn’t worth abandoning reality just to lie to myself about a happy ending.  Plus, if they are right, the consequences of believing in God/Jesus and thus spending eternity with Him are too horrific to contemplate.  To me, that is the more horrible ending; spending eternity with a being that would torture my fellow humans simply because they wouldn’t suspend reason and morality and call evil 'good' just to save their own ass.

So their pseudo-“Pascal’s Wager” is untenable to me and they apply it lopsidedly to their own lives when it comes to all the other deadly, but improbable events that could occur.  They are not altering their lives by hoarding water, food, guns, and fuel.  They are not building bomb shelters and walking around covered in motion detectors and bubble wrap to protect themselves from even moderately improbable events let alone events as improbable as God.  When I see my Christian friends collectively preparing for imminent catastrophe from asteroids and aliens, disease and disaster, or every possible random traffic accident, maybe then I will think they actually believe in Pascal’s Wager themselves.

Jesus, or just the idea of Jesus?

Something which is true should able to withstand scrutiny.  Evidence, both pro and con, would be weighed and and a definitive conclusion presented, or perhaps the finding that there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion.  Likewise, when something is deemed good, we should be able to validate that claim by comparison to other "good" things, or by observing the benefits and risks associated with it.

Many Christians make the claim that God and his offspring, are both real and good.  However, when it comes to defending that notion very few are willing to stick with you long enough to defend the claim.  When confronted with a challenge to these beliefs they fall silent or spew a list of things they believe about God or their 100% certainty and then fall silent without any attempt to actually address the issues presented.

It would seem to me that if God was real and good, they should be able to easily demonstrate those facts, but they never do.  They make some sad attempts at telling us how incomprehensible God is to us intellectually ill-equipped humans all the while regaling us with their comprehension of what God thinks and does and wants.  They never actually present any tangible evidence for their claims or rebuttal for the arguments against the existence of God or his immorality.

I am beginning to believe that it is actually the idea of God/Jesus that these individuals are clinging to rather than the "real" God/Jesus.   If God/Jesus were real, they should be able to easily shut us down when we question them; however, they stubbornly refuse to even entertain the debate.  Perhaps, they are afraid that the belief they hold cannot stand up to the test and they feel it would be devastating to lose that belief.  The idea of an eternal life and a constantly vigilant father is comforting to them and they will lock themselves behind that steel door of 100% certainty and 0% inquiry to ensure that their emotional cocoon is not broken.  They are in love with the idea of Jesus and ideas can be challenged and overturned with knowledge, so they must be protected against any such attack by the most effective means possible- remaining ignorant and unwilling to respond to any challenge by simply ignoring it and going silent.  If they actually believed in a substantial being of morality, justice and love, they would take the challenge head on and demolish us with truth, irrefutable truth and silence us as we too stood in awe.  Their failure to do so speaks volumes about their claims and that 100% certainty they proudly proclaim.    

I Don't Hate Myself Enough To Be A Christian

Humanity is inherently weak, unjust, selfish, prejudiced, and evil; at least that is the tune sung by many Christians, both pastors and laity alike.  Without constant supplication to a god to help us stay on track and his subsequent violation of our free will and the laws of physics (how else can he do it?) to answer our prayers, we would succumb to our supposedly baser instincts to steal, rape, and murder each other.

We are wicked; born inclined to "sin", with no ability to control ourselves.  Without a god, we would be immoral and purposeless - a meaningless mass of worthless flesh uncontrollably driven to self-gratification with no care for others.  

I don't know about you, but to me this is an awfully depressing view of humanity and one that I just don't accept.  I have a purpose without god; whatever purpose I choose for my life.  I am not depraved and indifferent to others, an uncontrollable sinner, but rather a responsible member of society.  I do not need a god to define my morality, especially one that is depicted as so despicable and immoral in his own holy book.  And I am constantly looking at ways to improve as is most of the rest of society.  Most of us are not killing, raping, and stealing; we are just trying to get by in life, protecting our families and causing no one undue harm.  I believe in the inherent goodness of humanity which is borne out everyday in simple acts of kindness to strangers and the ability of societies to work together to solve problems despite differing opinions.

If I have to believe the Fundamentalist Christian view of humanity, well, I guess I'm just not depressed enough or have low enough self esteem to be a Christian - I don't hate myself enough to be a Christian.

Are There No True Believers?

John 14: 12-14

14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

Matthew 18:19-20

¹⁹"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 

²⁰For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

So, if you believe in Jesus, he will do anything that you ask? Anything? What if what you ask is immoral? There doesn’t seem to be any qualifier here, but let’s assume that he means morally acceptable requests. It seems reasonable that people would understand that he means that.

Billions of people claim to believe in Jesus and from some that I know or have met, I would say that at least some of them are being totally honest. Of these billions, if only one percent honestly believed in Jesus that would still be tens of millions of true believers.

So have none of these true believers ever asked for an end to hunger, poverty, war, disease, prejudice? Have none asked for world peace? Have none asked for Jesus to provide more evidence for non-believers so that all could come to Jesus? It doesn’t appear that any have. I can only think of a few explanations for this:

(1) No one has ever asked.
(2) No two true believers have ever been together and asked at the same time.
(3) Jesus lied.
(4) The whole story is fiction.

Possibility #2 seems unreasonable given the sheer number of believers. Option #1 would indicate that every single person who has every prayed has prayed selfishly. They have only prayed for themselves or close friends and relatives. But still, even if everyone only prayed for themselves or friends and family, the number of people involved would have covered nearly everyone on Earth. And yet we still have hunger, poverty, etc.

Given the outcome of prayer for Madeline Neumann, Kent Schaible, Ava Worthington, and Neil Beagley - all were children who died because the parents prayed instead of seeking treatment that would have easily cured their child - Jesus clearly didn't live up to his promise. So the most likely options are #3 and #4.

What Sacrifice?

SACRIFICE
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Allowing innocent substitutes to be sacrificed and blaming subsequent generations for the crimes of their ancestors is a commonly accepted practice of this just and loving god.

So god makes the rules, doesn't want to enforce the rules, but can't change the rules because that would not make him look too godly.  So he concocts this bizarre arrangement to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself.  If we decide to look at this rationally and do not accept the validity of a substitute sacrifice or doubt that god actually sacrificed anything, this loving god sends us to eternal torment.  Nice huh?  Give us a rational mind and then punish us for using it.

And what exactly was sacrificed?  Jesus was God, after all, and was resurrected just a few days later.  A day of torture (and you knew it all beforehand because you arranged it all) an eternity of bliss sitting beside, er - yourself?

Does any of this convoluted story sound like the work of an all-knowing, all-loving god?  Does it make any sort of sense?  It doesn't to me. If we are to believe the Bible, then this vengeful, bloodthirsty god of the Old Testament suddenly felt sorry for us and tried to give us a way out - a crazy, nonsensical way out - but a way out nonetheless.  But if we don't accept it, he rapidly goes back to his old ways, actually worse ways because Hell didn't exist in the Old Testament.

I don't know if any gods exists or not. I am extremely doubtful.  I don't see any logical reason to believe, but I could be wrong.  But if a god exists, he certainly cannot be as described in the Bible; at least one would hope not. This 'sacrifice' story is just one of several issues in the Bible that do not depict a being that is even close to being what I would consider "God-like".  If I am more ethical and rational, then it is not a god.