The Christian Contradiction, An Example

[joe1776]

When the baptism I attended was made part of the regular Protestant service, I was in the audience when the minister and a 20 year-old woman, who wanted to be a minister, performed a question and answer session.

The minister began by admitting that churches faced the problem of dwindling interest by the younger generation and wondered how his young protege might deal with it.

Her answer began with her personal goal: She didn't want to go to Hell. So, she explained that she would follow the teaching of Jesus and learn to love even atheists regardless of their beliefs. Both she and the minister then reinforced their message of unconditional love.

If either of them realized it, neither mentioned the contradiction in their message. They were both imagining that they were capable of a higher grade of love (unconditional) than the God they worshipped who would send those atheists to Hell to suffer eternally for not accepting Jesus as their savior.

Your thoughts?

 

[Earthling]

Well, the Bible doesn't teach hell, so, their love could be judged as hypocritical to you but not God's love.

 

[Quintessence]

What contradiction? It's my understanding that not all Christian traditions teach that non-believers go to hell. Furthermore, the notion of punishment is not incompatible with the notion of unconditional love. Many a parent disciplines their child but retains unconditional love for them.

 

[joe1776]

Well, the Bible doesn't teach hell, so, their love could be judged as hypocritical to you but not God's love.

So, are you claiming that most Christians aren't taught of the existence of Hell and eternal punishment?

 

[joe1776]

What contradiction? It's my understanding that not all Christian traditions teach that non-believers go to hell. Furthermore, the notion of punishment is not incompatible with the notion of unconditional love. Many a parent disciplines their child but retains unconditional love for them.

The fact that there are exceptions, does not negate the general rule that most Christian faiths teach that Hell is a place of eternal punishment.

Furthermore, while punishment as instruction is compatible with unconditional love, the idea of eternal suffering for picking the wrong religion is not.

 

[Earthling]

So, are you claiming that most Christians aren't taught of the existence of Hell and eternal punishment?

Not at all. Most of them are, but that doesn't make it accurate.

 

[joe1776]

Not at all. Most of them are, but that doesn't make it accurate.

Agreed. However, the contradiction in my OP concerns what most Christians believe, traditional Christianity.

 

[Earthling]

Agreed. However, the contradiction in my OP concerns what most Christians believe, traditional Christianity.

Okay, sure. Fair enough, but I'm just saying it is important to consider the Bible's teaching in which there is a contrast. A brief aside if you will. However, I'm not too comfortable with the insistence that God must certainly adhere to our subjective speculation on what "unconditional love" means to him.

Though according to the Bible no one will be literally punished for eternity in hell, there will be many millions of people who undergo everlasting destruction and some may question that as well, citing the unconditional love of God.

 

[Quintessence]

The fact that there are exceptions, does not negate the general rule that most Christian faiths teach that Hell is a place of eternal punishment.

Do most of them teach this? I don't honestly know. Do you know of a study that was done of the thousands (by some accounts, tens of thousands) different Christian denominations assessing which ones teach this and which ones don't? From there, it'd also be interesting to assess the population of each of these denominations to get a sense of how many Christians belong to traditions who teach this. We'd also want to ask the adherents directly for their thoughts, since it's not uncommon for folks to be part of a religious community but diverge from the party line on particular issues.

I don't know of any large study that encompasses all of this, but I have run across a few bits and pieces of things here and there. For example, while a solid majority of Christians surveyed in America believe in hell (see Importance of Religion and Religious Beliefs), a majority also believe many religions can lead to eternal life (see U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices). So there's quite a bit going on here that deserves some more attention and analysis.

Furthermore, while punishment as instruction is compatible with unconditional love, the idea of eternal suffering for picking the wrong religion is not.

Why do you believe that? I mean, we're talking about a very alien entity that could hardly be expected to understand the world in the same way we do. Because of that, I don't find it at all difficult to square "eternal damnation" with "unconditional love" or just about anything else that looks like a bizarre paradox from a human perspective. Personally, I don't really care either way as someone who doesn't worship the Abrahamic one-god, but I'm dimly aware of the complexity of the theologies that study that god.

Besides, aren't you missing the forest for the trees here? Don't you think it's great that some of these traditions are emphasizing virtues that you presumably would also consider awesome? I'd think you'd be happy for them instead of critical?

 

[joe1776]

Okay, sure. Fair enough, but I'm just saying it is important to consider the Bible's teaching in which there is a contrast. A brief aside if you will. However, I'm not too comfortable with the insistence that God must certainly adhere to our subjective speculation on what "unconditional love" means to him.

You're right, of course. Our beliefs are limited to our capability to understand.

Though according to the Bible no one will be literally punished for eternity in hell, there will be many millions of people who undergo everlasting destruction and some may question that as well, citing the unconditional love of God.

I don't believe that the Bible was inspired by God. I think it was the work of well-meaning men.But that's a debate that we might have another time.

 

[Jainarayan]

Do most of them teach this? I don't honestly know.

The Roman Catholic Church used to, at least from what I remember. I think it's softened its position.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not teach a fiery hell. Rather, it's an eternal separation from God the person has decided to pursue. Then the realization sets in. That's the self-punishment. The teaching is that God is heartbroken that someone has turned their back on him and walked away.

I don't know for a fact, but I'd wager the Anglican/Episcopal Church has the same sort of soft God-is-sad view.

Maybe not coincidentally, the EOC and A/EC have a much less legalistic approach to things than the RCC.

 

[Woberts]

Love = unbearable pain for eternity.
Who knew?

 

[joe1776]

Do most of them teach this? I don't honestly know. Do you know of a study that was done of the thousands (by some accounts, tens of thousands) different Christian denominations assessing which ones teach this and which ones don't? From there, it'd also be interesting to assess the population of each of these denominations to get a sense of how many Christians belong to traditions who teach this. We'd also want to ask the adherents directly for their thoughts, since it's not uncommon for folks to be part of a religious community but diverge from the party line on particular issues.

I don't know of any large study that encompasses all of this, but I have run across a few bits and pieces of things here and there. For example, while a solid majority of Christians surveyed in America believe in hell (see Importance of Religion and Religious Beliefs), a majority also believe many religions can lead to eternal life (see U.S. Religious Landscape Survey: Religious Beliefs and Practices). So there's quite a bit going on here that deserves some more attention and analysis.

My OP was written for readers who are willing to accept the premise that traditional Christianity teaches of Hell as eternal punishment of non-believers as common knowledge. If you don't, my argument won't convince you of anything.

Why do you believe that? I mean, we're talking about a very alien entity that could hardly be expected to understand the world in the same way we do. Because of that, I don't find it at all difficult to square "eternal damnation" with "unconditional love" or just about anything else that looks like a bizarre paradox from a human perspective. Personally, I don't really care either way as someone who doesn't worship the Abrahamic one-god, but I'm dimly aware of the complexity of the theologies that study that god.

When confronted with a contradiction in their position, it's not uncommon for a believer to fall back on the claim that "God works in mysterious ways." Your argument is a variation on that claim: It may be a contradiction in human reasoning minds but we don't know what a 'very alien entity' might be thinking.

If it needed to be clarified, when I speak of a contradiction, I'm speaking of a contradiction in human reasoning.

Besides, aren't you missing the forest for the trees here? Don't you think it's great that some of these traditions are emphasizing virtues that you presumably would also consider awesome? I'd think you'd be happy for them instead of critical?

I'm not missing anything, you're changing the subject. I'm pointing out the flawed reasoning that will prevent traditional Christianity from simply claiming that Christ taught unconditional love and dropping the teaching there with no mention of Hell.

 

[Kenny]

When the baptism I attended was made part of the regular Protestant service, I was in the audience when the minister and a 20 year-old woman, who wanted to be a minister, performed a question and answer session.

The minister began by admitting that churches faced the problem of dwindling interest by the younger generation and wondered how his young protege might deal with it.

Her answer began with her personal goal: She didn't want to go to Hell. So, she explained that she would follow the teaching of Jesus and learn to love even atheists regardless of their beliefs. Both she and the minister then reinforced their message of unconditional love.

If either of them realized it, neither mentioned the contradiction in their message. They were both imagining that they were capable of a higher grade of love (unconditional) than the God they worshipped who would send those atheists to Hell to suffer eternally for not accepting Jesus as their savior.

Your thoughts?

I think it is a matter of perspective or how one delivers the message.

For an example:

Dad says "Don't rob a bank because you will go to jail". The child robs a bank and then the judge sent him to jail"..

Question:

Who sent him to jail? The Dad? The judge? Or the person who robbed the bank?

Did the judge not love him? Did the dad not love him? Or is there a possibility that both loved him?

 

[Quintessence]

My OP was written for readers who are willing to accept the premise that traditional Christianity teaches of Hell as eternal punishment of non-believers as common knowledge.

Hmm. This is not apparent from the OP. What is "traditional Christianity?" Protestantism? Which type of it?

When confronted with a contradiction in their position, it's not uncommon for a believer to fall back on the claim that "God works in mysterious ways." Your argument is a variation on that claim.

For them it's true, though, isn't it? We're talking about an entity that is said to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, and unchanging. Of the god-concepts I'm familiar with, it's one of the most esoteric and abstract of them all. It definitely isn't anything remotely similar to humans, who are non-omniscient, non-omnipresent, non-omnipotent, non-eternal, and changing. Seems logical to me to conclude that the ways of such a god would be "mysterious" or downright unintelligible to humans. Granted, that brings up some other conundrums, like how one could know "the word" of such an entity or communicate with it to begin with, but that's probably neither here nor there with respect to this particular topic.

If it needed to be clarified, when I speak of a contradiction, I'm speaking of a contradiction in human reasoning.

If the human understands that the entity involved in the discussion is very, very not-human and "works in mysterious ways" that are generally incomprehensible to us, is this really a contradiction in human reasoning, though? I mean, I get that it's weird - and it's not something I personally agree with - but it makes sense if examined on its own terms rather than my own.

 

[joe1776]

I think it is a matter of perspective or how one delivers the message.

For an example:

Dad says "Don't rob a bank because you will go to jail". The child robs a bank and then the judge sent him to jail"..

Question:

Who sent him to jail? The Dad? The judge? Or the person who robbed the bank?

Did the judge not love him? Did the dad not love him? Or is there a possibility that both loved him?

Ken, your analogy serves to confuse a fairly simple issue in my opinion.

A loving parent might, with regret, use a fair punishment meant to instruct and change bad behavior. But the idea of eternal suffering in Hell, for any reason, would be an act of vengeance not one of instruction -- and certainly not an act of love.

Moreover, the reasons one might not accept Christianity are not, according to conscience, immoral reasons. Eternal punishment for non-believers is absurdly unfair.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

According to Matthew (11.23-24), Jesus cursed the people of Capernaum and threatened them with hell because they didn't accept him. He also spoke of hall having eternal fire. It would seem that if you don't believe in a burning hell, you don't believe that the gospels contain the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, your analogy serves to confuse a fairly simple issue in my opinion.

A loving parent might, with regret, use a fair punishment meant to instruct and change bad behavior. But the idea of eternal suffering in Hell, for any reason, would be an act of vengeance not one of instruction -- and certainly not an act of love.

Moreover, the reasons one might not accept Christianity are not, according to conscience, immoral reasons. Eternal punishment for non-believers is absurdly unfair.

OK... maybe my analogy is somewhat week...

Let's make it different:

A dad tries to stop his son/daughter from taking drugs. He loves her, tries to stop her, and does everything in his power to get him/her not to go that route... but he/she takes drugs anyway, get's addicted and lives a life of hell...

Did the Dad send him/her there? Or was it a self-will choice? Did he love his child?

Self determination and will has its blessings but it also has its consequences. Dad (God) had nothing to do with it... it was the persons choice.

 

[joe1776]

OK... maybe my analogy is somewhat week...

Let's make it different:

A dad tries to stop his son/daughter from taking drugs. He loves her, tries to stop her, and does everything in his power to get him/her not to go that route... but he/she takes drugs anyway, get's addicted and lives a life of hell...

Did the Dad send him/her there? Or was it a self-will choice? Did he love his child?

Self determination and will has its blessings but it also has its consequences. Dad (God) had nothing to do with it... it was the persons choice.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the decision to reject the Christian message of salvation is an act of free will. There is also no question that we should suffer the consequences of our mistakes or immoral acts.

However, the question on the table is: If we mistakenly reject Christianity, and if God loves unconditionally, would eternal punishment in Hell be a fair result?

My position is that Christianity can't take the position that Jesus teaches unconditional love and then, in the next breath, claim that God's love is conditioned upon the acceptance of Jesus as savior from the eternal punishment of Hell.

To put it another way, you can't offer Jesus as an exemplar of unconditional love while worshipping a god who acts more like a vengeful human king.

 

[joe1776]

According to Matthew (11.23-24), Jesus cursed the people of Capernaum and threatened them with hell because they didn't accept him. He also spoke of hall having eternal fire. It would seem that if you don't believe in a burning hell, you don't believe that the gospels contain the teachings of Jesus.

It doesn't matter what I believe. The issue I offered in the OP is that there is contradiction in the message I heard during that Protestant service.

Now, if we accept your scripture as presented, and If you were to claim that Jesus taught unconditional love, I would conclude that there's a contradiction. If we are only loved on the condition that we accept Jesus, then the love is conditional.