Questions on Salvation
1) Should punishment serve a purpose?
Should punishment serve a purpose? Moreover, if so, should this purpose be something greater than a desire for personal vindication or as an outlet for personal wrath? It seems to me that when we punish people, we can only ethically do so for one of three reasons:
1. As a deterrent to others who might wish to commit the same offence.
2. To protect others who might be a victim of the offence if the culprit were allowed to repeat the offensive behaviour without consequence.
3. To change the behaviour of the offender.
So what is the purpose in punishing non-believers in hell? What are the benefits of it? If hell is forever, the non-believer is not going to “learn a lesson from” or be changed by the experience. Having non-believers in hell is also not going to serve as a deterrent for poor behaviour either in this life or in another one. In this life, fear of hell is not a deterrent since there is no reason to believe that hell exists or that anyone has ever gone there. The fact that hell exists will also not be a deterrent to poor behaviour in “heaven” since in heaven all of God’s “saints” are supposedly going to be perfected, removing the possibility of anything other than perfect behaviour anyway. Locking non-believers in hell is not going to protect “the innocent” since God would be just as capable of perfecting the non-believers so that they would be “harmless” to believers. So what is the purpose of sending people to hell? Is it just so that God and those who believe in him will feel a sense of having been vindicated in that people who did not believe got what they “deserved?” If that is the case, does that not make God (and the people who believe in him) kind of petty and small?
2) The “Elect” of God?
In Romans 9, Paul discusses the concept of “election” and seems to say that the only people who can come to a saving knowledge of Christ are those people whom God has chosen, in his mercy, to bestow upon them an ability to believe in him. In other words, it seems to me that according to this particular view set forth by Paul, not everyone is one of the elect, and therefore, not everyone is able to come to a saving knowledge of Christ, since God has not given them an ability to choose him. One set of verses I believe support this doctrine are as follows: Romans 9:16-18 “So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy... So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.”
Some Christians will argue that Paul is not saying anything of the kind in this chapter. However, if one reads further, one sees that this really is what Paul is saying. He even acknowledges how unfair the doctrine seems with the following words: Romans 9:19-23 “You will say to me then, ‘Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will’ But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”
So it seems that if Paul is to be believed, the God of the bible not only sees people as mere objects but that he created some people with no other purpose but to be “objects of his wrath” or human punching bags. Punishing someone for not having what you alone can give them would be similar to beating a blind man to death when he fails to see or burning a paraplegic at the stake when he fails to walk up a flight of stairs. Is this really the kind of God that deserves praise and honor? Is this really what the Christian means when he speaks of God being “just”?
3) Can love be bought with threats of punishment or with promises of reward?
Most Christians believe that people who do not believe as they do or people who do not love Jesus will suffer eternal torment in hell. The question I have for believers who adhere to this doctrine is this: Can love be bought with threats of harm or with promises of reward?
If I am threatened into behaving in a good manner then I am at best amoral, because I am not acting with free will. If you believe that a supreme God is going to punish you or deny you life if you misbehave, it is like being permanently threatened into behaving well. In addition, if you believe there is some great reward for behaving well, then your motives for good behaviour are potentially more selfish. An atheist who does not believe in heaven and hell is potentially more moral, for he acts without these added factors. Who is more moral? Those who act for the sake of goodness itself, or those who do good acts under the belief that failure to do so results in hell?
If you love Jesus because you want something (heaven) from him, how are you any different from a prostitute? In this case, what is it that you really love: Jesus or the thought of heaven? Are you 100% sure, your motives are pure? Have you never considered the threat of Hell as part of your choice to choose Jesus as your saviour?
On the other side of the coin, is it right to worship something simply because you fear it? Is it right to bow to a dictator, no matter how evil this dictator is, if doing so will keep you from going to the gas chambers or to the ovens? Who is more worthy of admiration, an individual who refuses to succumb to an evil dictator, regardless of the threats of harm, or an individual who sells his soul for the promise of a reward?
Looking at it in a slightly different way, if a man said to a woman, “Love me or I will hurt you” is there anyone in their right mind who believes that the woman would really love the man to avoid being hurt? She might profess love and she might, in order to avoid being hurt, behave in a manner that seems loving, but deep down inside, I doubt that she would ever really be able to love such an individual. I know I would not.
What would Christians who believe that hell awaits those who do not become Christians think of a mother who said to her child, “Love me by the time you are six, or I will bake you in the oven.” In this case, the parent does give the child a choice, but what kind of choice is it?
Some Christians have compared Jesus sending people to hell to a parent who says to a child, “Don’t go into the street or you will be hit by a car.” This analogy fails, however, for many reason, the most obvious one being that in the case of Jesus, hell (unlike the cars) does not exist beyond his ability to control it. A more accurate version of the analogy of the parent warning his child about the dangers of going into the street would be a parent who says to his child, “Don’t go into the street or you will be hit by a car.” Then when the child goes into the street, the parent jumps into his car and runs the child over.
Many Christians, when evangelizing, attempt to paint a kind and compassionate portrait of Jesus by stressing how deeply saddened he is when he has to put people in hell. However, if the parent who bakes her child in the oven when the child fails to love her weeps as she preheats the oven in which to bake her child, would we really believe that she was grieved over her decision? Alternatively, if a parent weeps as he beats his child to death, should this cause us to believe that the parent is a compassionate and loving individual, who only has his child’s best interest at heart?
Some people might argue with these analogies, saying that not everyone is God’s child. Even if this is true, however, unless you are a Calvinist, you would have to believe that God loves everyone and desires for everyone to come to know him. If God really does wish for everyone to know and love him, then why would he put a limited-time-offer on his invitation to know him and why would he endlessly torture people who failed to accept his invitation? Only the most egotistical and psychotic of lovers tortures those who fail to accept his offer for a dinner date, and we as a society agree that an individual who hurts those who fail to love him should be severely punished. If we as a society agree that this type of behaviour is psychotic and worthy of punishment, why do we glorify these monstrous and Hitler-esque qualities in a God?
Some people say that our society is sick and that we as a people are in need of salvation. Perhaps there is some truth to this. However, is the religion (Christianity) adopted by our society really the cure or is it merely one more manifestation of the disease? I do not think so!
4) Grace or Works? Is salvation really a free gift?
Is salvation really a free gift? I have heard many Christians say that salvation is free and that all that is required is that you receive it. If this is true, then why does it matter whether you receive it in this life or whether you receive it after bodily death, when you and Jesus could open the gift together?
Is it not true that the Christian religion actually does not teach that salvation is free but that salvation is obtained through the act of faith? Moreover, does this not explain why Christians believe that salvation is no longer offered after bodily death, because at that point, faith would no longer be necessary and therefore could no longer be earned?
If faith is required to be saved, then doesn’t salvation become an earned commodity? Or, do Christians believe that faith itself is a gift?
Is it possible that Christians are very confused about what they believe when it comes to these doctrines of salvation and damnation? Some Christians reject the doctrine of predestination and election that we have discussed earlier. They state very emphatically that they do not believe in the Calvinistic God, the kind of God who eternally torments people for not having what he alone can give them. Yet, at the same time, these very same Christians tell unbelievers that they will pray for them, and when a person does “accept Christ”, they pray and thank God for the conversion. Is praying not that God will “draw someone to himself” or thanking God when a person becomes a Christian an indication that the one praying believes that it is God who changes a person’s heart and not the person himself? And if you believe that God does the converting and that faith itself is a gift, then how is your God any different than the Calvinist God since it would then be obvious that your God does not give this “gift” to all?
If God is moral then everyone has a chance to enter heaven. This means people who never learn which religion is correct, or even accept the wrong religion, have a chance at entering heaven. Our moral actions must determine whether we enter heaven or not, not our knowledge or religion therefore revealed religion must be false.
5) The suffering Messiah?
While evangelizing, Christians often emphasizes the terrible suffering of Jesus on the cross and say, “He DIED for you”, as if this alone should move us to eternal gratitude and as if, we are somehow personally responsible for his suffering. However, is any of this true? Did Jesus really die for us? Or, if he really was God, did he die in order to satisfy some petty, self-created, technical requirement?
Let us say that I am a child. I create a bunch of little toys and bring them to life. I tell the toys, who are now humans, what my rules are. One of the little humans disobeys my rules. Now I decide that I am going to have to create a hell for these little humans since they disobeyed me. I further decide that the only way I can accept, love, or care for these little humans is to get a baseball bat and insist that one of them crash it over my head. After insisting that a baseball bat be crashed over my own head, I then bring myself back to life in 3 days, inspire some little humans to write a book about what happened, disappear from sight. I then insist that all humans from this point forward best acknowledge that I am “the fairest of them all”; else, I will turn them into toads and torture them forever and ever. Sound like a familiar fairy tale?
As a creator, am I worthy of respect and admiration simply because I am the creator? Should my little humans bow down and worship me and should they develop doctrines and write whole books justifying my behaviour in the hopes that I will refrain from hurting them in one of my many fits of rage? On the other hand, should they recognize that their creator is a lonely child who got her hands on too much power and who only wanted a friend? Is it possible that the great Yahweh is really but a small man behind the curtain much like the “Great Oz” in the Wizard of Oz? Is it possible that this little man behind the curtain is secretly hoping that someone somewhere will have the gumption to lift the curtain and to force him to see what he really is? Is it possible that Yahweh secretly longs for a parent, an advisor, or a mentor of his own and is constantly disappointed that not one of his creations has the courage or ability to do the one thing he wants the most, to be trained and parented?
If a child gets her hands on too much power, who would the child grow to love and respect more: those who befriend her, advise her, and train her, even at great risk to themselves, or those who simply flatter her and justify all of her bad behaviour out of a desire to avoid becoming her next victim? Christians often say that loving is more than just hugs and kisses but that sometimes “love must be tough”. Well perhaps there is some truth to this and perhaps, if we really wish to love a God, our love must be “tough” and we must be willing to confront and correct behaviour from this God that is unacceptable. Otherwise, I do not think we really love him.
Christians often speak of God as “holy”, saying, “he cannot look upon ‘sin’ or imperfection”. However, who decided that he could not look upon imperfection? Who decided that he could not accept imperfection unless he first subjected himself to a brutal, violent death on a cross? Christians act as if this God had no choice in the matter. They seem to believe that Yahweh’s need to have someone “pay” for the disobedience of Adam is a rule that he must adhere to and is not a rule or standard of his own making. If it is true that the need to have someone suffer as “atonement” for sin is a standard he must adhere to whether he likes it or not, then where did this standard come from? Wouldn’t such a scenario imply that God himself is then accountable to an authority or law that exists outside of himself? On the other hand, if God simply decided that he could not accept his own creation unless he first killed himself, then why should we feel badly about it?
To put it another way, what if after a child disobeyed, the parent of this child went out in the backyard, picked up a baseball bat, and bashed in his own skull, killing himself in the process? Should we then say, “Look how much that man loved his son. There is no greater love than this. Look how the parent suffered. He smashed his own skull with a baseball bat.” And should we then say to the child, “Look how dirty and vile you are that your disobedience has caused your father to hate you so much that the only way he could love you was to hurt himself?” I do not think there is anyone in his or her right mind who would suggest that such a scenario was healthy or wholesome or representative of what true love is all about.
Should we really be moved by the suffering of a man who, if God, would have had the power to suspend all physical pain? Why should we feel moved to gratitude that Jesus killed himself so that he can love us? Moreover, why should we be sympathetic to the 24 hours of suffering of a man who, if God, stands by impotently while children suffer ungodly torments for days on end?
Is hurting oneself so that you can love and accept the imperfect beings that you created really an act of love or is it an act of perversity?
