Tag: God

Flying Spaghetti Monster – 1: erase your memory

May 5th, 2024
Another reason that non-Christians have a lot of trouble swallowing the idea that the God of the Bible at least possibly exists, is due to a malformed understanding of who he is. For a lot of these non-Christians, the reason for this misunderstanding is because of an, understandably, bad reading of multiple passages of the Old Testament, which is constantly perpetuated in atheist circles on reddit and other platforms. This miniseries is quite exhaustive, so I’ve split it into three – this is the first.

I also apologize for going silent for a couple of months. This series took AGES to research, I watched LOADS of videos, read lots of books, all with the intention of being as honest and neutral (at least as much as one can be) as possible in this series, so I think I can confidently say that whoever you are, you can get something of value out of this series, even if it’s just a sentence.

Rethinking The Torah*

*For clarity, you should know that ‘Torah’ does not actually mean ‘the whole Old Testament’. It is synonymous for “Pentateuch” and refers to the ‘first five books of the Bible’ – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers.

A convincing argument can be made that the laws in the Torah were not Israel’s complete constitution. Rather they were a selection of the laws at times and places to help paint a picture of what God’s people were supposed to be like (and ultimately highlights their eventual failure to keep them).

Let’s take a brief detour…

Firstly, let’s look at a similar ‘legal’ text – the Code of Hamurabbi, which was an ancient code of law from ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia. It’ll help to give us some precedent as to how to understand the Torah:
- Christine Hayes, Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, tells us that
  - “we would do better to understand [Old Testament Laws] as legal collections and not codes. I know the word ‘code’ gets thrown around a lot [for example] “Code of Hammurabi” and so on but they really aren’t codes. Codes are generally systematic and exhaustive, and they tend to be used by courts. We have no evidence about how these texts were used. In fact, we think it’s not likely that they were really used by courts, but they were part of a learned tradition, and scribes copied them over and over and so on – they are also certainly not systematic and exhaustive. So, for example, in the Code of Hammurabi – we don’t even have a case of intentional homicide, we only have a case of accidental homicide so we really don’t even know what the law would be in a case of intentional homicide – we can’t really make that comparison with the biblical law.”
- More scholarly support is found from John Walton, Old Testament scholar and Professor Emeritus at Wheaton College tells us in regard to Ancient Near Eastern legal collections that
  - “these are not laws that have been enacted, nor necessarily rulings that have been actually given. They are treatises on judicial wisdom”.
So, the Code of Hamurrabi (“COH”) – was not universal – it was just a means to establishing an end – order, which was reckoned the highest good in the Ancient Near Eastern society. This is backwards from today. The Code was a self-glorification of the king and, arguably, subjects would have read it as descriptive (is) justice, not prescriptive (ought), i.e., “this is how I do x, I’m so great!”. The COH was a manner of teaching justice, like a justice model. It was a treatise, with casuistic (case-by-case) examples, on the exercise of judicial powers. In this regard, it is very similar to how the Torah is supposed to operate, and it sets the stage for us to look at the Torah.

The point is, that these are more didactic (written with intent to teach) than prescriptive (“you ought do these exact things”). They are trying to teach judicial lessons or express the importance of order and justice. There is no indication that these ANE legal collections were prescriptive or understood as national legislation. As Delbert R. Hillers notes in Covenant, these laws “left considerable latitude to local courts for determining the right in individual suits. They aided local courts without controlling them.”

…and now you get it better.

The Torah defines instructions, or directional teaching on the path of life. These are more like guidelines than actual rules. The Torah is like Proverbs (another collection of wisdom sayings later in the Bible, except it is more like culturally-situated wisdom). The ‘laws’ found in the Torah, therefore, are very similar when comparing them to their Hittite or Babylonian counterparts.

This helps us out, as contradictions are not an issue if the Torah is not prescriptive but didactic. Take for example, Leviticus 23:22:

‘ When you gather in the harvest of your land, you must not completely harvest the corner of your field, and you must not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.’” ‘

vs Deuteronomy 24:19, which mentions the widow also:

‘ Whenever you reap your harvest in your field and leave some unraked grain there, you must not return to get it; it should go to the resident foreigner, orphan, and widow so that the Lord your God may bless all the work you do. ‘

Another point may be made in that we see the author of 2 Samuel 12:6…

‘ Because he committed this cold-hearted crime, he must pay for the lamb four times over!”’

…was aware of the Torah (Exodus 22:1)…

‘ (21:37) “If a man steals an ox or a sheep and kills it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox, and four sheep for the one sheep.’

but when we see David’s punishment in 2 Samuel 12 for adultery with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba, and murdering Uriah, we see that David was not killed.

We note from this that the Israelites did not see the law as universally prescriptive. Jesus affirms this, contrary to the Pharisees, that saw the Torah as perfectly universal. If you look at Matthew 12 – gathering grain fields on the Sabbath, and see Jesus’ response, quoting what David DID, not what the law said ‘word-for-word’. Matthew 12:3-4,7 reads:

‘ He said to them, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry – how he entered the house of God and they ate the sacred bread, which was against the law for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests?…If you had known what this means: ‘ I want mercy and not sacrifice ,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. ‘

…so is there ANYTHING prescriptive in the Torah?

Yes, specifically in each book post-Genesis:
- Exodus:
  - Beyond the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), there are various laws in chapters 21-23 (known as the Covenant Code) that have didactic elements, teaching about justice, fairness, and the treatment of others in the community.
  - The Ten Commandments here are objective and are kept by Christians, due to Matthew 19:18, John 14:15, and Malachi 4:4-6 telling us how the Jews/Israelites understood this law. Chapters 21-23 are didactic, as they are casuistic and dependent on the cultural situation of those who are receiving the law.
- Leviticus:
  - Leviticus is known for its detailed ritual laws, especially in chapters 1-7 (laws about sacrifices) and 11-15 (dietary laws and purity laws). These can be seen as didactic in teaching the concepts of holiness, purity, and the distinction between the sacred and the profane.
  - The sacrificial Levitical laws of cleanliness are obsolete now, as we no longer have the need for ritual sacrifice in the New Covenant.
- Numbers:
  - Numbers contains a mix of narrative and law. The chapters concerning the organization of the camp (chapters 1-4), the laws of the Nazirite vow (chapter 6), and the laws for the community (chapters 15, 19) can be interpreted as didactic, emphasizing the need for order, dedication, and community responsibility.
  - Pretty much all of the laws in Numbers are given for this specific people and place, they are therefore obsolete.
- Deuteronomy:
  - Much of Deuteronomy (especially chapters 12-26, often referred to as the Deuteronomic Code) can be seen as didactic. These chapters reiterate and expand upon earlier laws, emphasizing the need for Israel to follow God’s commands as a way of life and teaching principles of justice, compassion, and societal organization.
  - Similar reasoning for Deuteronomy and Numbers. There are some laws that can be said to still stand, for example Deuteronomy 18:9-13, but it’s clear that most ‘laws’ here are given directly to Israel per circumstance.
My main point is that the Torah expresses the moral importance of something, so that Israel would understand how important it was to God, however, this is working within the guidelines of ANE society. They are “Covenant Stipulations” and are therefore dependent on the presence of the Covenant – not rules for all people at all times and all places.

The Suzerain-Vassal Treaty

The Law was what we call a ‘Suzerain Treaty’ – which was when the King of one nation took on another nation as a vassal (a person, or nation, who received protection and land from a lord in return for loyalty and service). See Isaiah 42:6 and Ezekiel 36:22 for evidence. The Torah was not given as a time-independent ideal system. It is a culturally situated system it was meant to bring enhancement to the reputation of the Lord among the nations of the Ancient Near East, and therefore there wasn’t much God could do if he wanted to protect his people in this environment dominated by the idea conquest, power and expansion.

Imperfection

The Torah was meant to teach Israel how to enhance the character of the Lord within the cultural world of their day – not our modern culture. I.e., what could they do so the other nations would see how great the Lord was? The Torah doesn’t address issues like if slavery is wrong because it’s not attempting to create the perfect moral code and it was not written to our modern sensibilities. It is “working within the culture”. The Torah teaches importance of certain things in relation to others, but was used to give instruction, or aid local courts in judgement with regard to certain issues. You may have realised that I am repeating similar ideas, but I think it’s necessary considering how drastic of a change of understanding I am asking for most readers.

Evidence for this ‘’imperfect law” understanding is seen when a change was introduced in Numbers 27 – God, again, admits that the Mosaic law was imperfect in verses 6-7, because he admits a change – why would you change a perfect law? Deuteronomy 15:12-18 also improves on Exodus 21:2-11, providing evidence that the law slowly progresses.

Some Objections:
1. Some might object with Psalm 19:7, which states that the Law of God is perfect, however, when the Hebrew word ‘tamim’ is used elsewhere like in Genesis 6:9, with regards to Noah, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Noah was perfect. Also, it’s a Psalm, so literal interpretations need to be taken with a pinch of salt – expressive, idealistic writing is extremely common in this book, and you’d be hard-pressed if you take it literally. A better translation would be “The Law of the Lord is sound, consistent, unimpaired, and genuine”, this would be a much better understanding of what the writer was attempting to convey.
2. Another group might object, saying ‘Why not just force them to be better?’ I worry that this would obstruct free-will, and it might not be beneficial for them in light of this. There would also be a ripple effect, in also having to effect changes in the surrounding nations. If a people like us were swapped with the Israelites living in 1500BC, our moral code likely wouldn’t get us very far. Again, the Torah doesn’t address issues such as “is slavery good”, “are women greater than men”, “is democracy better”, etc. God was trying to work within the bounds that these people had. It is effectively like working with a child – sometimes, you just can’t force them to do what you want them to do.
3. A further objection might be raised in Matthew 5:17, but J.Daniel Hays tells us that “the antithesis is not between ‘abolish’ and ‘observe’, but between ‘abolish’ and ‘fulfil’. I.e., Jesus is not saying that he has come to observe the law, but to fulfil it, meaning that (according to how the Aramaic word is used elsewhere) Jesus came to “bring the Law to its intended meaning”. Jesus was not stating that the law is eternally binding on New Testament believers – basically, the Pharisees had misunderstood the Torah and its purpose (see John 5:39). Matthew 5:21-22 echoes the intent of the Torah, with Jesus telling us that righteousness goes beyond following certain ‘laws’, and that that is not where true righteousness is found.
  - Also, see Matthew 5:18. Once everything was finished (John 19:28-30), the Torah would pass away (for clarification of this verse, see Hebrews 8:13).
4. On a less related note, some might argue that some punishments in the Torah seem harsher for specific crimes, but these seem to be crimes that are direct offenses to God, or because the Torah places a higher value on human life and less on property. For evidence, check out how the Middle Assyrian Law, the Code of Hamurrabi and the Hittite Law handle things like theft and murder. Compare your findings to those in the Torah!
Some improvements?

In some respects, the Torah can be seen improving upon some of the prevailing laws of the ANE.
- Christine Hayes tells us that Middle Assyrian Laws legalize violence against wives and “destrainees” (debt-servants). She also tells us that the Bible improves upon the idea of punishment depending on class hierarchy, something found in the Code of Hamurrabi.
- Michael Walzer tells us that
  - “it has often been said that Israelite law the three codes taken together is more advanced that is more humanitarian liberal and so on than that of other ancient peoples”.
- Furthermore, we see that the Torah transitions the justification for morality to be the character and person of God, not the eyes of the state – which could also be considered an improvement, as it provided an incentive for the Israelites to be good. It was common in the ANE back then for your social worth/culpability to be dependent on whether you were caught in the act or not, and so your socio-ethical standing was dependent on how you appeared, not who you truly were before the court law. We see that God, multiple times, tends to justify the reason for following the law in his being, especially when regarding certain laws that may be hard to enforce on a court-level – see Leviticus 18:4, 20:7, 24:22, 25:17.
This concludes part 1! If you liked it, you should check out this video series by Inspiring Philosophy. That’s where I got most of the information for this post, and it’s a lot easier to watch than read :).

Apologies if this felt like drinking from a fire hose! There’s a lot to cover here, and I tried my best to condense it into something that wouldn’t take too long to digest, however, my next two posts are nowhere near as short, and reasonably so, but there’s a lot of good information here that anyone can benefit from reading.

Thanks for reading, and until the next part,

Rookie

Type your email…
pain, pleasure, and everything in between – pt.2

Jan 7th, 2024
For a lot of people, a schmackdown objection they have to Christianity is the issue that, post-our horrible struggles here on Earth, the supposedly omnibenevolent, so-called all-loving God of Christianity gleefully sends people to their demise in a fiery afterlife just for not believing in him. This post is aimed, as you guessed it, at vindicating the God of the Christians, and to help you to really understand the concept of hell, and why it actually makes good sense. I’ll be using the NET translation, with NRSV where unapplicable.

There are a couple stages we need to go through before we get to Hell – by now, everyone and their dog knows the story of Adam and Eve, but only a select few nerds know the story of Satan himself. There are two interpretations I have found of his story. The first one is more clearlty supported by scripture and more popular, but I think the second one actually makes great sense. Either way, the one you decide to run with won’t really matter since the cause of the fall is practically the same for both.

Stage 1: Where it all began, the story of Satan

As we know, the angels and the heavens were created before the Earth. What were they doing? It’s not very clear, but we do know that at some point all the angels, including Lucifer/Satan, existed together in harmony, given that for there to be a ‘fall’ there needs to have first been peace.

Ezekiel 28:12-19 starts by addressing the King of Tyre, but as the text progresses it shifts to a more symbolic language that theologians intepret to refer not just to the human King, but the spiritual forces (Satan) behind him. It reads:

““Son of man, sing a lament for the king of Tyre, and say to him, ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: “‘You were the sealer of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God. Every precious stone was your covering, the ruby, topaz, and emerald, the chrysolite, onyx, and jasper, the sapphire, turquoise, and beryl; your settings and mounts were made of gold. On the day you were created they were prepared. I placed you there with an anointed guardian cherub; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked about amidst fiery stones. You were blameless in your behaviour from the day you were created, until sin was discovered in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I defiled you and banished you from the mountain of God – the guardian cherub expelled you from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom on account of your splendor. I threw you down to the ground; I placed you before kings, that they might see you. By the multitude of your iniquities, through the sinfulness of your trade, you desecrated your sanctuaries. So I drew fire out from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth before the eyes of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are shocked at you; you have become terrified and will be no more.’””

Using similar reasoning, Isaiah 14:12-15 (NET) backs this interpretation up:

“Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn [Lucifer]! You have been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations! You said to yourself, “I will climb up to the sky. Above the stars of El I will set up my throne. I will rule on the mountain of assembly on the remote slopes of Zaphon. I will climb up to the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High!” But you were brought down to Sheol, to the remote slopes of the pit.”

Along with Revelation 12:7-9:

“Then war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan], and the dragon and his angels fought back. But the dragon was not strong enough to prevail, so there was no longer any place left in heaven for him and his angels. So that huge dragon – the ancient serpent, the one called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world – was thrown down to the earth, and his angels along with him.”

And lastly, Wisdom 2:24 (NRSV):

“But through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his party experience it.”

These verses give us great insight as to what happened, and why it happened. Note that the name ‘Lucifer’ is a Latin name, traditionally understood to mean “morning star”.

Interpretation 1:

Ezekiel tells us that the ‘morning star’ was the ‘signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty’. Isaiah tells us that Satan gave in to this pride and decided he wanted to become, not just like God, but God himself. According to Revelation, Satan managed to convince a third of angels (clarified in Revelation 12:4) to rebel with him, but they were defeated by Archangel Michael and his angels and, according to Luke 10:18, Satan fell ‘like lightning’ to the Earth.

Interpretation 2:

Provided the same verses, some speculate that the devil was not directly envious of God, but rather, was envious of humanity. I found a video of a Priest who said that:

“God showed the Angels some semblance of his plan for the world and that the destiny of the human person is to be elevated and glorified in a remarkable way above the Angels. Satan won’t stand for that so he rebels and goes to war, not against God (the devil knows he’s a creature he knows he can’t beat God), he goes to war against us. His conflict is against us. Why us? We’re the creatures God loves the most so he can’t accept the plan that God has for us because in all reality you and I are rather puny and weak in comparison to the Angels.”

I actually think this interpretation, although not the most obvious, makes the most sense. Angels are defined as spiritual, created intellects with intelligence and will. They are also personal and immortal. If Angels possess intelligence, why would they go to war with God? They know they can’t win. It makes much more sense for them to attack something they think they have a chance of beating (i.e., us). I also struggle to see how Satan was able to convince a whole THIRD of the angels to fight God but, hey, what do I know?

In either sense, both great sins have the same source – pride.

From pride stemmed the desire for self-deification – the desire to be God, either in entirety or to have his will supersede God’s. From pride, envy formed – either Satan was jealous of God’s position and thought he rightfully deserved his place, or he was angry at the joy of man, and decided he wanted to ruin it. I would argue that pride is probably the greatest sin, because with it comes at least envy, wrath, and selfishness. It also paints Satan in a direct parallel opposite to the character of God. Revelation 12:12 tells us that Satan knows that ‘his time is short’ and effectively plans to drag all of God’s creation down with him.

But to where?

Stage 2: What is hell, and why does it exist?

The next step is to understand what exactly hell is.
First, like we did before, let’s look at the verses referring to Hell, explicitly, in the Bible.
1. Matthew 25:41:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!’”
1. Matthew 13:50:
“and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
1. Mark 9:43:
“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off! It is better for you to enter into life crippled than to have two hands and go into hell, to the unquenchable fire.”
1. Revelation 20:14-15:
“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death—the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.”
1. 2 Thessalonians 1:9:
“They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength.”
1. Matthew 5:22:
“But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment. And whoever insults a brother will be brought before the council, and whoever says ‘Fool’ will be sent to fiery hell.”
1. Matthew 10:28:
“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
1. Matthew 18:9:
“And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.”
1. Luke 10:12-14:
“I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town! “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you!”

From all these verses, we might draw a couple of conclusions.
1. Hell is a sentence, a judgement.
1. Hell might contain some sort of ‘fire’. We aren’t certain what kind of fire this is though, since fire as we know it is at least a merely physical phenomenon. The Bible isn’t one hundred per-cent clear on the metaphysical state of the damned post judgement. We should also note that verses 3, 6, 7, 8 use ‘Gehenna’ in their original language.
  - Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, is an actual valley in the city of Jerusalem. In Israel’s past, it was used as a place of child sacrifice. From the reign of Josiah onward, it was used as a garbage dump where the fires burned the refuse continuously. Jesus used it as an illustration of the final judgment of the wicked.
  - Further, provided that the first two verses are taken from passages where Jesus is speaking in parable, and so maybe metaphorically, it could be said that the fire might not be literal, although the experience in Hell may be analogous to it.
1. Hell is intended for the Devil and his angels. Satan does not rule hell, he is to be punished inside it with the rest of his subjects.
1. In whatever way Hell will ‘materialize’, it will be inherently destructive for its inhabitants.
1. Whatever this ‘fire’ is, it will not preclude the target’s ability to think, as there will be ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’.
1. Hell is a place where God is not. Of course, he knows what’s going in there, but its inhabitants remain separated from his presence.
1. Based on Luke 10:12-14, there may be levels of judgement/“punishment” in Hell, given that ‘more’ implies a relative scale.
  - Dante’s Inferno illustrates this concept in a fascinating way, check it out!
Pretty morbid, eh?

Well yeah, it would be – and here’s why.

It is within the human nature to search for good.
We look for things we enjoy, that make us feel nice, laugh, smile and more. In fact, even when you do something wrong, I’d argue that you did it because it, or something related to it, felt right to you at the time, although you may have known it was wrong.
If this is true, it is clear to see that in attempting to do ‘wrong’ things, we are going about looking for something ‘good’ in an incorrect way. i.e., we are looking for some perversion of something good. For example, serial killers do objective evils, however to them, they find some sort of enjoyment in these evils. They do not do evil for the sake of evil itself, but in search of some sort of perverted good (enjoyment, but through murder) or perverted route to good.
From this, we can note that good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good, given that evil is, by nature, a perversion of what is good.

Now, think for a second, what would you get if the source of infinite goodness removed himself from the presence of humans who, by nature, desire good?

Hell – fire or not – a truly torturous existence.

Hell is a place in which good does not exist. The ‘concept’ is still there in the memory of its inhabitants, but there is no sort of material ‘source’ from which good can be drawn.

Everything that makes someone good comes from God. Every expression of goodness is by necessity an expression of his nature (as we are made in his image), and so in Hell, due to an absence of God, there is nothing left of you that makes you good.

In saying no to God, we are saying no to the infinite good, and therefore to the only thing that could make us truly happy – since it is common knowledge that materialism only brings finite, temporal joy.

I’ll speculate here, but all this could mean that one can still sin in hell, since Jesus affirmed ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ and therefore some level of consciousness in Hell. Therefore, Hell is not necessarily a punishment, it’s a self-inflicted state.

To summarize, the experience of “eternal separation” from God is pretty much hell. Fire or not, removing God creates Hell for a creature that is ordered toward searching for good. Hell is for people who desire to put themselves on an equal level, or above, God. God is a gentleman, and he gives those people exactly what they want insomuch as it is possible. Hell may be a way of him saying “fine, as you rejected my love for your eternity [your whole life], I will also reject you for mine” or CS Lewis put it much better in ‘The Great Divide’:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”

Stage 3: Common Objections

I think I’ve answered the majority already, but these are some that I’ve missed out:
1. How can God give an infinite punishment for a finite crime?
I’ve already made an argument that it’s not accurate to say that Hell is a God-inflicted punishment, but rather a self-inflicted one. The infinite/finite issue is a fair question, but a few points can be made.
- The length of time it takes to commit a crime is not necessarily equal to the period of time one would be punished for. This is quite clear even in our judicial systems. You could kill a person in five seconds, but in most countries, you’d be put behind bars for much longer than that.
- As already stated, Matthew 13:50 alludes to some level of consciousness in Hell, which may provide evidence that sinning may continue in Hell and, as a result, ‘continually lengthen’ the period of one’s stay.
- It can also be proposed that rejecting God may be the ultimate sin. If you reject the infinite, ultimate source of good, what are you left with? What more can he give you, if not himself?
1. Christians believe you have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven, right? What about all the indigenous people that have never heard of Jesus? Are they automatically condemned?
This, funnily enough, was the exact question that made me become an atheist in sixth form. Surely, not every person has heard the Gospel, right? Mark 16:15-16 is pretty clear that you need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven, right? What about everyone else who, through no fault of their own, are effectively condemned to hell just because they happened to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time? That’s horrible!

Time to read again:
1. Exhibit A – Old Testament Evidence: Job
Most people have probably heard of Job and his tale, but I’m not here to talk about that today. The point I’ll make is quite simple. Job wasn’t a Jew, he wasn’t a Christian, but God proudly spoke about him to Satan in Job 1:8:

“Then the Lord said to Satan, ‘Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth, a pure and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil.’”

God is clearly proud of Job, and if Job had died at the moment God was speaking, it’s hard to make a case that he would have gone to hell. Note that God says that ‘there is no one like him on the earth’, implying that the point of this story is not to tell us that we can be like Job without God since God concedes that Job is literally one of a kind, given that it is a story about trusting God in the midst of suffering. The Historicity of Job and the Old Testament is a topic for another time.
1. Exhibit B – Gospel Evidence: Luke 12:48, John 9:41, and John 15:22
Luke 12:48 reads:

“But the one who did not know his master’s will and did things worthy of punishment will receive a light beating. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required, and from the one who has been entrusted with much, even more will be asked.”

John 9:41 reads:

“Jesus replied, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now because you claim that you can see, your guilt remains.””

John 15:22 reads:

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”

I think these quite heavily imply that those that lack knowledge cannot be fully blamed. The more you are blessed with, the more that will be demanded from you. Common sense, right?
1. Exhibit C – Pauline Evidence: Acts 17:26-28
“From one man he made every nation of the human race to inhabit the entire earth, determining their set times and the fixed limits of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope around for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.”

From this verse and God’s nature, it can be argued that God has providentially ordered it such that those who would hear the gospel are those who would have the best chance of responding to it, and those who never hear it are those who had the ‘lesser’ chance of accepting it.
1. Exhibit D – Pauline Evidence: Romans 2:12-15
“For all who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous. For whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them…”

This is more or less a mic drop. Paul tells us that the law is ‘written in [our] hearts’, implying that we all have some sort of instinct telling us right from wrong, societal conditioning or not. Those who ‘perish apart from the law’ will be judged according to their response to that conscience and knowledge.

There could be more passages, but I think these were the clearest.

However,

This does not provide you with an excuse, or a ‘way to heaven without God’. Under Christian teaching, the only reason why anyone can make it to heaven is precisely because of Jesus’ sacrifice and reconciliation. Should a person be declared righteous at judgement and allowed into heaven without hearing the gospel, the debt of their sins have been paid by Jesus on the cross, and his grace ‘covers’ them. The reason, I think, that the Bible or Jesus don’t explicitly tell us what happens to those who haven’t the chance to hear the gospel, is precisely because we might become complacent. It might swing the other way, and we would effectively render Jesus’ sacrifice as useless.

I should also point out that my intention with this post is not to reduce Jesus’ sacrifice to a ticket to heaven. Although that is included for the faithful who remain faithful, Jesus can very literally change your life if you give your life to him!

I watched a podcast episode featuring Joe Heschmeyer and Matt Fradd, and Joe said something that stuck out to me. I’ll summarize:

“The reason hell doesn’t make sense to modern man is because he has no idea he is anything less than great [or at the very least, good] …do you deserve to be the President? [I don’t think so.] Well, do you deserve to go to heaven, a place of perfect, eternal bliss? [Does anyone?]”

Special Stage: Does Heaven = Hell?

I was debating whether to actually include this section. I watched a discourse between an Atheist and a Catholic about a month ago on the Christian concept of heaven, and I thought that the Atheist brought up some interesting objections that most people don’t actually think about, and so I decided to basically dump the objections here along with a mix of some of my, and the Catholic’s responses. The last one is really good!

Objection 1: Might Heaven not become boring? If we have finite minds, might we not just get bored of the experience, or run out of things to do?

Not necessarily. Provided there could be activities provided by an infinitely creative mind, is it not possible that we may never run out of things to do? In the case that there is repetition, that might not necessarily be a bad thing. Some people enjoy some repetitive, simplistic things.

Objection 2: Ok, but what about the idea that you can’t leave? Can’t that be characterised as slavery? If not the idea that you can’t leave, what about the idea that you are induced with surroundings that you would never want to leave?

I don’t think that’s necessarily a form of slavery. For example, if we use an analogy of a person who wants to commit suicide, oftentimes, we would say that they are making the wrong decision, although it may seem right to them. Even in the horrific case that the decision may seem like the correct one to some (i.e., euthanasia), who are we to say that? We aren’t God, we don’t know the future, and a person in heaven isn’t suffering, like one in a critical state of health.

Objection 3: Sure, but what about free will, the Christian concept of free will means that we can do anything we want to, right? Regardless of if it’s right or wrong, if you can’t sin in heaven, doesn’t that mean you don’t have free will? Isn’t that some form of slavery?

No. Free will isn’t being able to do whatever you want – it’s just having the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.
It doesn’t necessarily follow from that that I can do anything I want to. No matter how hard I want to, I couldn’t breathe in Space without a source of oxygen, or I couldn’t fly, it’s contrary to my nature. Free will is therefore dependent upon the nature of the agent that is exerting it. A person in heaven wouldn’t be able to sin because it would be contrary to their nature – i.e., they would never want to, and the reason they would never want to is because they would have a complete conception of good and evil. [As said earlier,] a person who commits evil does it not out of a desire for the evil itself, it’s out of a desire for some malformed good. Now, pleasure is a good thing, but it can become a bad thing depending on whether or not it is exploited, and how it is achieved. Therefore, in heaven, we would be able to clearly see and understand evil for evil, and therefore never choose it – similarly to how God doesn’t do evil. It doesn’t mean God doesn’t have free will – it’s just contrary to his nature. He understands evil for exactly what it is.

Objection 4: Right, but doesn’t that directly contradict the idea of Adam and Eve, along with the biblical idea of Angels? If Adam and Eve didn’t understand evil for what it truly is, how can they be blamed? Also, how could they sin if you say we were created perfect? Doesn’t sin require some sort of internal temptation? Further, if Lucifer knew exactly what evil was in heaven, how on earth (pun intended) did he sin?

I would say that Satan, Adam and Eve had enough understanding to be culpable for their actions because I would say that sin incorporates two or three components: an intellect, nature and maybe but not necessarily external source of temptation. Purity does not entail an impossibility of sin, it just means a lack of a predisposition/tendency toward it. So…
1. A person with intellect, and a non-tainted nature can sin if they understand evil well enough, and still choose it. For example, if we take Satan’s example, no one tempted him, and he had a pure nature with intellect. He had a choice between serving God and serving himself. He chose himself, and the necessary consequence of his actions was to suffer. Whether he regrets it or not, I don’t know, but considering (under Christian theology) he’s still working, I doubt it.
2. In the case of Adam and Eve, these had an intellect, and a pure nature, but also had an external source of temptation. If you look at the Hebrew used in Genesis 2:7, the word ‘nÿshamah’ is used to describe the breath of life that is infused into man. When this word is used in Job 32:8, it is said that ‘there is a spirit in man and the [nÿshamah] of the almighty gives them understanding’ implying that the ‘breath of life’ that was infused into man at the beginning carried with it some level of intellect. They understood sufficiently to choose well, and they chose wrong, and the necessary consequence of their action was heavy.
3. If we take Jesus’ example when he was tempted in the desert, Jesus was pure and saw evil clearly for what it truly was, and knew exactly what evil was in its essence. He wasn’t deceived by appearance, which was why he never chose it.
4. If we take ourselves in heaven, we will know exactly what evil is (like Jesus did), and therefore will never choose it. In heaven will know evil better than Satan did, seeing that we might know God better than the angels did. We will have a better reference point. Those who are in heaven will have resisted evil well enough down here, won’t they be able to do it in heaven?
Objection 5: Even if that’s the case, how will fairness be adjudicated? If other people get better things, it’s weird to say that everyone will be equally, supremely happy?

Sure, but this may presuppose some level of envy in heaven. Heaven is a gift, not something earned. You shouldn’t feel envious if you receive something you don’t deserve and someone receives better, considering you’ve been treated fairly. See Matthew 20. If you consider what we’ll receive like a wage, where I get paid £5/hour (that I haven’t earned), and the next guy gets £50/hour (that he hasn’t earned). I will still eventually get the same things he does, just at a delayed rate.

Objection 6: All that taken into consideration, if there’s no suffering in heaven, how will we feel we think about people that we care about who ended up in hell? Won’t we feel bad? Doesn’t that contradict the idea of no suffering?

Not necessarily. [As I said earlier in this post, there will be nothing ‘good’ left of those in Hell to miss or to feel sorry for]. We might not necessarily be rejoicing in people’s suffering as they are sent to and suffer in Hell, rather, we will be grateful to God for his justice. It would be a sin for us to love creatures more than the creator, and love is to will the good for another. We would be effectively hating justice if we did that and it’s actually a disordered compassion to not want justice for criminals. There do exist some people who actually don’t want criminals to be punished for their actions!

To be honest, the answer to most of these objections are founded on a presumption that heaven can be accurately concieved with a normal human mind. Although the following may sound like a cop-out, it’s difficult to project our current selves, ideas, and complications onto something that we, by nature, can’t fully comprehend. However, it’s good to flesh these things out in discourse.

All in all,

Since we also struggle to comprehend Hell, pretty much exactly because we are continually decieved by ourselves and Satan about the nature of sin, it’s easy to be convinced that no one deserves to go there. I completely understand that the traditional societal perception of Hell seems irrationally barbaric, but hopefully this post has helped to show how you can understand it in light of the Christian message and history, and how it actually makes good sense if it and verses about it are interpreted properly and in good context.

If you made it here, you’re an absolute nerd, but thank you for reading, and God bless! Let me know what you thought in the comments!

Type your email…
pain, pleasure, and everything in between – pt.1

Dec 16th, 2023
This specific topic is quite deep, and I’ve decided to split the post into two. This is part 1. The topics in each part aren’t exactly the same but are very closely related and this one segues perfectly into the next. You’re gonna have to keep reading to find out what they’re about though 🙂

Quite often, we hear the Atheists saying that Theism cannot be proved. Some Atheists consistently try to place the burden of proof on the Theists, and one snide way that they have attempted to do this, is through redefining what it means to be an Atheist.

The traditional definition, as defined by Graham Oppy in a video hosted by Capturing Christianity a couple years back, goes something like: “people who believe that there are no Gods”. The rationale for defining it as such makes perfect sense – if “Atheist” is given its current popular definition (“someone who lacks a belief in God”), then it has very little defining ability, which is effectively what names/definitions are aimed at doing. My laptop, a pen, and your toenail are therefore Atheists. It groups a lot of pointless objects and people under the definition of “atheist”.

You might think of it as sorting a box of fruits into two fruit bags.
These fruits represent both objects and people. All things placed in bag ‘a’ are ‘x’ and all things in bag ‘b’ are ‘not x’. ‘Lack-theism’, as some have called it, does very little to split the data that we care about (i.e., humans who know of the concept of God) coming from the box, and lumps in a bunch of useless data (i.e., anything incapable of holding a belief) – it would make as much sense to call myself a ‘Lack-lack-theist’!

Here’s the kicker though, it’s not possible for a person to hold a position that is none of: a positive affirmation, a negative affirmation, or an agnostic position (a withholding of judgement) with regard to a concept or idea, provided that they know what that ‘something’ is.

‘a-something’ classically means ‘negation of something’. Therefore, logically speaking, a-theism, is the negation of theism, or more simply put, the positive affirmation that God does not exist – for example, if I believed that Tom drove a car and I was called a CarBeliever, then an aCarBeliever would be someone who believes Tom didn’t drive the car, not someone who lacked a belief that Tom drove the car.

A reason for which many atheists have taken to this definition, is that, like I said earlier, it attempts to get rid of their work for them, as they are trying to put themselves in the category of people/objects that don’t need to justify their position, because it wouldn’t exist.
To those that hold to this definition, couldn’t I just ask you in turn, “Why do you lack a belief in God?”.

Some Atheists may fear that if they say ‘no one can prove a universal negative’ then the statement would be self-refuting, given that Atheism does involve a universal negative. These atheists would therefore be making the admission that Atheism is unprovable.

Ultimately, the question of whether something is certainly provable or not is dependent on that something, and has a lot to do with Epistemology, and that’s a very long conversation that I may or may not cover another time.
Instead, some atheists claim that the standard definition of Atheism, effectively, can be proven, and one such route they decide to take to do that is through the centuries-old, Problem of Evil.

I briefly covered this topic in my response to Alex O’Connor’s video – Christianity’s Biggest Problem, but let’s look at this argument, and see if it really is the cross on which Christianity has been crucified.

The Problem of Evil: the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

An Atheist (or Agnostic), generally takes one of two routes here:
1. It is logically impossible for God and Suffering to coexist.
2. It is evidentially improbable for God and Suffering to coexist.
Let’s assess both.

1. It is logically impossible for God and Suffering to coexist.

Pretty big claim, eh?
The theist position does not argue that God can bring about the logically impossible. Why? Because a logical impossibility is not a thing. It cannot be conceptualized and it cannot exist under the laws of our universe – for example, a married bachelor cannot exist, because it is defined by terms that are restricted to laws of language in our universe but attempts to conceive of something that is logically contradictory by those same laws.

Where am I going with this? I’m glad you asked.

You’ve probably realised that a person that asserts this statement likely has some sort of preconceived notion of God that goes something like this.
1. God is all-powerful and can create any world he wants.
2. God is all-loving and prefers a world without suffering.
3. God cannot create a world with suffering! C’est fini!
First, I’ll give some definitions. They’re not perfect, but they’ll do the job for the point I’m trying to make. Naturally, these are going to include some of my presuppositions but, hey, it’s either mine or yours!

A world: a temporal space consisting of matter and, at some point in time, one or more agents capable of free will.

Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.

Suffering: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship – the source of which may be poor decisions made by an agent or ‘natural’ sources, such as natural disasters.

As you can see, in any given world, it is at least possible that a given agent (in our case, a human) may be able to act in a way that may bring about suffering – for example, through breaking the law.
From this, it should be clear that statement 1 is false, as long as suffering is at least possible, given that God cannot bring about the impossible and breach our free will – lest it no longer be free.

Another point can be made that a given world without suffering could actually be worse that a world with suffering.
How?
Well, you might put yourself through cardio in the gym to reap the long-term health benefits. In a given parallel world where you didn’t, ceteris paribus, and presuming bodily health is objectively good, there would be less suffering, but less good.

Following this, we can propose that it is at least possible that, among all possible worlds, God could not have created another world with as much good as, but less suffering than, this world – and God has good reasons for permitting the suffering that exists – i.e., the net amount of good in this world is maximal and the total amount of good is maximum.

2. It is evidentially improbable for God and Suffering to coexist.

Right off the bat, this assumes or requires more knowledge than any limited being is capable of wielding, to prove – i.e., you would have to have near-infinite knowledge to know for certain if it were true.

It’s humbler, and at the surface, might look correct, but an appeal to the soul-building theodicy (a theodicy is basically an attempt to vindicate the problem of evil ) makes this objection quite vulnerable – it states that there are some virtues that can arise out of suffering, such as bravery, fortitude, and maturity.
Leslie Allan in “The Problem of Evil” objects, arguing that:

“A willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to save others from persecution, for example, is virtuous because persecution exists. Likewise, the willingness to donate one’s meal to those who are starving is valuable because starvation exists. If persecution and starvation did not occur, there would be no reason to consider these acts virtuous. If the virtues developed through soul-making are only valuable where suffering exists, then it is not clear what would be lost if suffering did not exist.”

To respond to this, it might helpful if we clear up some doctrines about God and suffering:
1. The purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
2. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose.
3. God’s purpose is not restricted to this life, but spills over into the next.
4. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Leslie proposes a fair critique; however, I think that there would still be a distinction in a soul formed through suffering and that same soul formed without suffering.

One reason a Christian can say that we exist on Earth, is to be tested in light of temptation (see Matthew 18:7 and point ‘c’). So, in light of fairness and presuming free will, a human that had undergone suffering and objectively “passed the test” would be able to say to God that they had “passed”. A human that had not undergone suffering? Well, only God would know.

As Leslie states, it is ‘not clear’ what would be lost if suffering did not exist, but many a time God brings us to our lowest points so that we may realise that he is the foundation upon which we stand. Therefore, it can also be argued that some forms of humility can be also gained through suffering. It is a way a relationship can be deepened and built, which corresponds to the nature of the Christian God, who is a relational being and likes to cooperate with man to achieve his objectives (see point ‘a’ and point ‘d’), rather than to force his will upon another.

I would argue that knowing God in the depths of struggle is very valuable. Many married couples fight all the time, but many that remain together through it all argue that the spats had made their relationship stronger.

Furthermore, I should also be clear that my point here is not that soul-building is the only reason why God permits suffering. Another reason might be justice (as Genesis 3, and ultimately, the whole Bible attests to, see point ‘b’).

Ultimately, in our finite, small, minds, who are we to say that God lacks good reasons for permitting suffering?

3. The Emotional Objection

**This is where I turn off the fancy philosophy language and talk like a normal human, so you can come back from daydream land now.**

Today, (writing this section on Sunday, December 10^th, 2023), I went with my mother to see some old family friends that I, myself, hadn’t seen for about fourteen years, but I still remember fondly as we used to play as children together back when I was a kid living in North London.
The reason we went to visit was because, sadly, in November they lost their daughter – let’s call her Ava for anonymity purposes.

Ava had been suffering from a condition since she was born, that severely affected her mobility. I don’t know the exact name of the condition, but I’ll try to describe it:
- She couldn’t walk or vocalise well, if at all (as memory serves)
- She didn’t have hands or limbs like we do, as her limbs were severely affected by her condition and, if she had been in pain, I probably wouldn’t have known it.
- She could eat, but as far as I know, she always needed help to do it. Ava’s mother was even advised to abort her by her doctors before she was born, but she kept her, and both parents committed to raising her daughter that they loved, and they poured time and effort into being the parents they knew they should be.
I’m not that well-informed as to what the exact cause of death was, but it was definitely related to her condition. Some people I know suspect that Ava might not have received the attentiveness that she deserved whilst in the hospital, and that some form of negligence might have contributed to her passing.

It’s strange, because I hadn’t even planned to write this part of this post at this specific time (I started writing this on Thursday 7^th), and I didn’t even know of her passing until this morning, since my mum thought I’d forgotten about them (again, I haven’t seen these guys for about fourteen years) and she was planning to head out to see them alone since my dad was feeling ill, but once she told me about it I decided to go with her to offer whatever condolences I could and keep her company, or at least try to cheer up the brothers I used to know so well.

I got there, and I saw that the family seemed to be doing quite well. The guys had grown up and their dad was still the cheerful guy I barely remembered him to be. Their mum was also extremely positive. I didn’t ask about their deceased sister since I had no idea how to do it tactfully, so I just spoke with them about life and school and other things. All in all, it was a very pleasant trip.

On the way back home, I was thinking about how the recent events were so related to what I’d already written here – how it so clearly looked so incredibly unfair for the girl to have to grow up like that, how much burden it put on the family, how much apparently meaningless suffering they, and their daughter all must have been going through, and how I felt so shallow just throwing impassive arguments at such an emotionally complex problem.
As we drove home and I was sat wondering whether it would be appropriate to add this section, my mother told me that she had been gifted a little photobook of Ava whilst we were at their house. I took it out of her bag and flipped through it, and one thing stuck out to me – Ava was still able to control her facial expression, and in a lot of the photos, she seemed to be smiling.

Smiling whilst she was playing in the park.

Smiling whilst she was reading a book.

Smiling whilst she was held by her father.

I realised that just because I couldn’t see the value in something didn’t mean it didn’t exist. I don’t know how much joy she gave to those around her, what effects she had on people or who she inspired. She’d, at the very least, left a lasting impression on both her and my family, and who knows how many more.

I won’t say for certain, but I think she was able to find some sort of happiness in her twenty-year stay here on Earth. With her family, with playing activities, and with loads of other things.

To the reader,

Ultimately, I know it’s very easy for me to sit behind this computer and use logic and fancy arguments to whittle away the Problem of Evil, but I know that there are some things that some people have gone through that I can’t even begin to empathise with. There’s no amount of logic that can overrule an emotional objection. Parents have had their children ripped away from them, women have been raped, people have been afflicted with diseases so severe that death may seem like a reward – I could go on and on.

I don’t know what you’ve been through, and I’m not going to act like it was/is easy to get through it. I’m not going to say that you deserved it. I’m not going to brush it off and tell you to just get on with it, and if you ask me why things were allowed to happen that way, I’m not going to lie to you and say that I know, because I don’t.

The point of this has mainly just been for me to show that, good can come from evil, and unlike Atheism, Christianity provides a framework within which not only is there an objective, good end for which you’ve undergone what you have, but you aren’t alone to deal with the cruelty of an indiscriminate, impersonal, cold universe, and where life is objectively meaningful.
As a parent loves their child, God would rather you scream your frustrations and struggles at him, than for you to turn away from him completely.

In Isaiah 43, God is talking about his people, Israel, but this chapter most definitely applies to us individually. Verses 1-5 read:

“Now, this is what the Lord says, the one who created [you]: “Don’t be afraid, for I will protect you. I call you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters, I am with you; when you pass through the streams, they will not overwhelm you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not harm you. For I am the Lord your God… Since you are precious and special in my sight, and I love you…don’t be afraid, for I am with you.”

For those with a little more time,

I guess I might have sounded a little preachy here, and sorry for that – considering that my objective with this blog isn’t necessarily to say what I feel about a subject, but rather what I think. However, this is necessarily an emotional topic, so I kind of had to.

If you have some time, I implore you to watch this 20-minute video about the story of a young girl that lived a century ago. It shows what can be brought out of some of the darkest situations. Clearly, there are some religious overtones to it, but anyone can watch it. It contains one of the most immense displays of grace I have probably ever seen.

Thank you for reading, and God bless.

Rookie

Type your email…
“Christianity’s Biggest Problem”

Nov 12th, 2023

This is a, somewhat brief, response to the video made by Alex O’Connor, called “Christianity’s Biggest Problem” where he asks the questions: Why does a truly powerful God permit such an overwhelming amount of animal suffering? This refers to suffering that specifically excludes human interference, but is a consequence of the natural state of the animal system. How can an all-loving God permit this?

Point 1 (Theological Perspective): Imperfect World

I would like to begin by stating that the Bible never claims that the world is perfect. In fact, it claims quite the opposite (John 16:33, 1 John 5:19), that the world is imperfect and full of suffering and trouble. The Bible does, however, make the assertion that God is good and loving, multiple times (Psalm 25:8-9, Joel 2:13).
The obvious question to ask here, is how can an all-loving, omnipotent God permit an imperfect, suffering-filled world to come from him (I know the original statement refers to the suffering of animals, but I’ll get there)? For this, we need to go back to the beginning of the Bible, Genesis.

Genesis 3:11-19, NLT, reads
“Who told you that you were naked?” the Lord God asked. “Have you eaten from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat?” The man replied, “It was the woman you gave me who gave me the fruit, and I ate it.” Then the Lord God asked the woman, “What have you done?” “The serpent deceived me,” she replied. “That’s why I ate it.” Then the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, grovelling in the dust as long as you live. And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.” Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” And to the man he said, “Since you listened to your wife and ate from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat, the ground is cursed because of you. All your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it. It will grow thorns and thistles for you, though you will eat of its grains. ‘ By the sweat of your brow will you have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made. For you were made from dust, and to dust you will return.”

In short, the reason we were expelled from paradise was our sin, in disobeying God, and we (Adam and Eve) are rightly punished for our offences. God did not ‘permit’ our suffering and pain per-se, but instead allowed us to make a choice between subservience and paradise, or insubordination and suffering. This is simply the world that we chose by serving our own selfish desires, and we, and the animals of this world, are simply suffering the consequences of our own actions.

A question may be raised here that, “Why are the animals suffering for the actions of the humans?”.

Responsibility and dominion.

Genesis 1:28, NLT reads:

‘Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”’

We were, and are, responsible for the lives of the animals that live on this planet, and by our actions, they have been punished for our iniquity.

If this still doesn’t make sense, then this analogy may help to clear things up.

Let there be a supreme being A, that rules over Kings. Let one of these kings be B, and let this king rule over a people, G. A has given B authority to rule over G, and therefore, the decisions that B makes are very important, as “with great power comes great responsibility” and great consequences can arise from the misuse of this power. If B is corrupted, then naturally G will suffer from the poor decisions of B, and you may clearly see that A represents God in this analogy, B represents humans, and G represents all the other animals of the land. The animals have been transitively punished through us, but some may argue that in the serpent’s biblical punishing, the other animals were punished by relation.

Point 2 (Logical Perspective): The Value of Pain

My second point proposes that pain has value, and even though it is generally undesirable, it is necessary.

System 1:

You [Alex] say[s] that the problem is the inherent design of the ecosystem.

Let’s imagine, like he said, that ecosystems cannot be balanced without predation and therefore predation is the only viable system by which the worldwide natural ecosystem can exist and be stable. By your point, should we remove the pain factor for wild animals, such that they don’t feel pain, they would have died out by now. They would never know when they are in danger of death and, therefore, would never be able to prevent it.

Also, if we did that, how would that even be possible? Would this method be selective in that only wild animals cannot feel pain and we do? If that’s the case, isn’t that discriminative to humans? If we removed the human pain factor, then you can guess my logical conclusion.

System 2:

If we instead suppose that there is in fact a better system? Most people would agree that you’d need to propose that there is one and what it look like (aside from Eden, of course).The Bible has, or had, a solution, Genesis 1:29 reads:

‘Then God said, “Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food…”

It seems that God’s final intention was that those in Eden were never supposed to eat animals, and they were never supposed to eat themselves.

Pain is a mechanism that our body uses to tell us that something is wrong, a messaging system, if you will, and further, the degree to which we experience the pain can tell us the severity of an issue.

In fact, it is because of pain that we can truly value pleasure as we have a more definitive benchmark. Just an absence of pleasure (not pain, simply nothing) would most likely not be a good enough motivator for most to change things that need it (the way you sit, what you eat etc.).

I’d like to finish off by saying that the Christian claim is not that this world is perfect. It is that it is full of suffering. This was not the way things were supposed to be, but it is God’s will which is the best manner by which we can reach the best world. We believe that from struggle and strife, God can bring strength and joy.

Type your email…

Tag: God

Flying Spaghetti Monster – 1: erase your memory

pain, pleasure, and everything in between – pt.2

pain, pleasure, and everything in between – pt.1

“Christianity’s Biggest Problem”