Some of the questions that I've regularly asked conservative religious theorists and rarely get full answers that meet moral or rational levels:
1. Do you believe that some sins deserve eternal torment?
2. What specific crimes or misdeeds warrant eternal torment?
3. Do you believe/theorize that even one sin, one single lie to your mother, justifies eternal torment?
4. But how is that consistent with justice or ideas of justice as justice is normally understood?
5. Do you believe in the perfectly loving and perfectly just God?
6. How do you define perfectly loving and perfectly just? Based on what?
7. Do you believe that it is God's will that none should perish or be tortured, not one human?
8.
Why would you take a verse that says something about eternal hell
literally but not the verse that clearly says God is not willing that
any should perish?
9. What is your rubric for deciding which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively?
10.
Can you clarify that you can't objectively know which passages should
be taken figuratively and which literally OR do you think that you DO
have that power to understand perfectly the literal and figurative
verses?
And other questions like these...
I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment?
Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.
There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.
And other questions like these...
I'll note that while they are glad to answer these questions in part, it's only in part... never fully filling out a rational basis for the larger questions. Yes, they may say they believe in a hell of eternal torment and separation from God, but WHAT is it that deserves that sort of punishment?
Yes, they may answer that question with the simplistic, "Sin" or "having a (theoretical and unproven) 'sin nature...'" but the necessary follow up questions that immediately comes up - Which sins? ANY sins? EVEN ONE "sin..."? How is that worthy of eternal torture/torment? How would eternal torture be in any way a just or loving response?? - these questions go unaddressed. I'm relatively sure that this is because they are so grounded in their human theories that they can't even recognize how these are reasonable questions OR that they have no reasonable answers for them.
There's more to this topic that I'm still wanting to write about, but I thought I'd at least get these reasonable unanswered questions out there.
[NOTE: The butterfly pictured is the Question Mark butterfly, thus, my using it for this post.]
3 comments:
Questions on this topic from Stan's blog:
Stan seems to be making forgiveness and justice more complex and inscrutable than need be. He asks:
God doesn’t always forgive (e.g., John 3:36; Matt 12:31). He offers it universally (Acts 17:30; 1 Tim 2:4), but it is conditional (repentance and faith). How does that work?
In 1 John (and in common sense) we see an answer:
"God is light; in God there is no darkness at all.
If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet
walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.
But
if we walk in the light, as he is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin...
IF we confess our sins,
God is faithful and just and WILL forgive us our sins and
purify us from all unrighteousness."
How does forgiveness works? The guilty one apologizes, the innocent one accepts that apology and forgives them. Period. It's right there in the text, clear as day, straightforward and obvious to common sense, as well as biblical teachings. THAT is how it works.
Stan continued to try to make forgiveness inscrutable...
As it turns out,
forgiveness is trickier than we first thought. [says who?]
You see, as we discussed earlier, mercy and justice are …
terms that don’t play well together. [says who?]
Justice “balances the books” and
mercy withholds the just penalty due for … imbalanced books.
The only way for mercy and justice to coexist
is to have the “crime” paid for and then
not apply to the “criminal” the penalty due.
1. To have an innocent person "pay off" the guilt of a guilty person, that isn't just. That isn't forgiveness. That isn't atonement (being made at one... restoring right relationships.)
2. If a man rapes and tortures and kills a loved one and then, in court, a completely innocent person says, "I'll take that penalty for the rapist/killer..." THAT isn't justice. That does not appease the harmed family. WHY would a family member find any peace in having an innocent person accept the penalty for the harm done to them?
More questions to go unaddressed and unacknowledged.
This isn't forgiveness, it is a crass business transaction that does not address justice concerns or love or restore relationships.
Why are you commenting about Stan's blog when he clearly doesn't want you there?
I'm talking about ideas and ideals that Stan and his commenters raised on his blog, but the ideas are not unique to him.
I'm talking about these theories that many conservative religionists have because they are important ideas to talk about and theories and notions that are strong can withstand questions.
Why would I NOT talk about ideas raised on Stan's blog, as well as in other places?
Are you someone, Ms/Mr Anonymous, who does not believe that conservative theories can withstand reasonable, honest questions?
If so, I agree. I don't think they can, either... at least not this latest version of what has become conservative religionism. I think that's why the strongmen types (like this president) appeal to them. Too often, they want to bully others into agreement, as opposed to defending them with rational arguments.
When they say, "Make america great again," they are too often intending to say, "make the US like it was 50 years ago, when white conservative religiosity wasn't questioned..."
Now, on the flip side, I have known plenty of conservatives in my life who COULD deal with questions and do so respectfully. I just don't run into them much any more.
Post a Comment