christianity

Reading a Fundamentalist

I’ve had a thought about Christianity in my head since driving down to Abingdon Friday afternoon. I was imagining having a conversation with Stephanie about why I’m not a Christian, wondering what she would say to this and that, and yet another contradiction in basic Christian doctrine.

It all came about from thinking about a book of Maw-Maw’s I skimmed when I first got here. I was sitting by the television and I noticed “Satan” in the title, and obviously became intrigued. I picked it up and saw the wonderful title: Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. It’s by Hal Lindsey, whom I researched just a little on the internet, but nothing significant. The surprising thing is it’s published (in 1972) by Zondervan Press in Grand Rapids. Who made the decision to publish such idiocy? At any rate, during his silliness, he writes the following:

When man fell into Satan’s hands, God immediately launched His plan to redeem man from this helpless situation. What Satan didn’t count on was that God would be so just that He wouldn’t forgive man unless divine justice was satisfied. And something much more incredible — that God would be so loving that He would be willing to step down from heaven and temporarily lay aside all of His divine rights and become a man. Satan didn’t anticipate that God, as a man, would later to a cross and bear His own righteous judgment against the sin of the whole universe.

Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth (63)

This requires one slight altercation in the Christian definition of God: either he can’t be omniscient or he can’t be completely benevolent. “When man fell into Satan’s hands, God immediately launched His plan . . .” This means that God was waiting for the Fall — he new it was coming, and had planned for it. This makes one wonder how loving God is to create a being knowing that he was creating this being to be damned because of his own nature. It also implies that God didn’t know beforehand — though this implication is admittedly weak.

The whole thing points out the danger in saying God had a plan. When was this plan hatched? Before creation? If so, then he created humans to be damned — at least those who don’t “accept Christ” and all that nonsense. After creation? If so, then he didn’t anticipate the Fall — and he is not omniscient. Of course I’m just butting my head against a cliché wall, for in the end it’s all “a matter of faith” and I realize that such thinking does nothing for anyone but me. It only reinforces what I already believe, just as this Satan Is Alive and Well nonsense probably only reinforced what Maw-Maw believed. (There’s a lot about how Christ came down and suffered for our sakes — this is nothing new. Yet it’s as if he’s explaining it to people for the first time. I suppose the equivalent would be Dr. Clayton reading only intro to philosophy books — it’s filled with stuff he already knows.

Speaking of philosophy, a chapter entitled “Thought Bombs” deserves a few words. He writes that

a few eighteenth-century men . . . dreamed up ideas which have sent shock waves to rock our thinking today.

The contamination of these explosive ideas has been so devastating that it has completely permeated twentieth century thinking. . . . Satan took their concepts and wired the underlying frame of reference for our present historical, educational, philosophical, sociological, psychological, religious, economic, and political outlook. You and I and our children have been ingeniously conditioned to think in terms that are contrary to biblical principles and truths in all these areas — without our even realizing it. . . .

I realize it is a serious charge to imply that these brilliant men, who in many ways made significant contributions to our world, were instruments of Satan to lead men’s thinking away from eternal truths, but as the case against them unfolds I believe the conclusions will be justified.

Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth (84, 85)

That’s a fairly significant claim to make. “He’s basically going to try to show how some philosophers are Satanic,” I thought. “I wonder in how much detail he will deal with these thinkers?” I thought. Of course, I knew it was for the general readership — not for anyone with any background in philosophy whatsoever.

Before launching into these “thought bombers,” he warns, “You may find some of this pretty heavy reading . . .” A nice pat on the back — what I’ve written is so difficult for some to understand, but “it is absolutely essential that we understand how we have come to this present hostility toward God’s viewpoint of life.” He’s setting his readers up for some “heavy” philosophical musings, that’s for sure. With that, he launches his section about the first thought bomber: Kant. I think I’ll put the entire section in:

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher. He never traveled more than sixty-nine miles from his home in Prussia, where he lived from 1724 to 1804, and yet his original thinking formulated principles which still sway the civilized world.

Until Kantian philosophy began to influence the intellectuals of the age, classical philosophy as based upon the process of antithesis, which means that man thought in terms of cause and effect. This means if A is true then non-A cannot also be true. According to classical philosophy, values were absolute.

The world at large accepted these possibilities of absolutes in both knowledge and morals. Before Kant you could reason with a person on the basis of cause and effect. However, this one man and his critiques began to question whether people could actually accept things which were beyond their five senses.

A modern French philosopher described the Kantian thinking this way: “Kant was able to go definitively beyond skepticism and realism by recognizing the descriptive and irreducible characteristics of external and internal experience as the sufficient foundation of the world.”’

In Kant’s analysis of the process of thought he proposed that no one can know anything except by experience. He believed that individual freedom lies in obedience to the “moral law that speaks within us.”

Kant, therefore, finding no personal basis for accepting absolutes, triggered the ideas which would result in the philosophy introduced by another German[, Hegel.]

Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth (85, 86)

There it is, ladies and gentlemen — in just 237 words he “demolishes” one of the most important philosophers of the eighteenth and nineteenth century. One of the most important in the history of philosophy. And he did it all without having a single primary source. (At least he doesn’t include any of Kant’s books in his “bibliography.”)

Doubts

In The Search for Significance by Robert McGee, I read the following passage: “We can do nothing to contribute to Christ’s free gift of salvation . . . We are the sinners, the depraved, the wretched, and the helpless.” Does that sound like a healthy attitude? That type of thinking about oneself is at the very core of codependency. Fighting codependency with Christianity is like throwing grease on a fire. McGee goes on to write, “So then, our worth lies in the fact that Christ’s blood has paid for our sins; therefore, we are reconciled to God. We are accepted on that basis alone” (77). This means that God does not accept humanity for its own sake, but rather accepts humans through Christ. In other words, God wants nothing to do with us unless it’s through Christ. I’m worth a little more than that, though.

I keep wanting to talk to my father about this. I want to tell him that I’m not a Christian and I want to explain why. But it’s the initiation of such a conversation that frightens me. I’m not afraid of his reaction — I don’t think he’s going to do something silly and drastic. Still, I know it will disappoint him to some degree. I’m sure he already realizes it to a point, but for me simply to tell him, I think it would be a bit of a shock. I can only imagine what Mom might do. Of course they’ve both changed with the changes in WCG — perhaps they wouldn’t take it as badly as I might expect.

Waco Disaster

After fifty-one days the stand-off with Branch Davidians’ leader David Koresh in Waco is finally over. FBI agents began an assault this morning with tanks, battering down the walls of buildings in the compound, then delivering “non-pyrotechnic” tear gas into the compound. Although the cult members had gas masks authorities said the masks would only remain effective for approximately eight hours. Eight cult members escaped the blaze which grew to an inferno with the aid of thirty-mile-an-hour winds. Cult members shot at firemen as they tried to put out the fire, so all that could be done was to sit and watch the buildings go up in flames. Anywhere from 17 to 25 children were in the compound and I believe two of them were among the eight that escaped death.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn) has already called for an investigation into the whole affair. It will be interesting to see what becomes of it. There’s been stories that of the four federal agents killed in the raid, three were killed by friendly fire. If all were killed by friendly fire then this could become an enormous scandal.

There’s no doubt that this will be compared to the Jim Jones People’s Temple mass suicide of the seventies. It will be fascinating to read books concerning this, books that compare this to the Jonestown massacre.

I’ve been working on an idea for a story about Abraham. I’ll put my notes in here now.

Abraham couldn’t believe what he was hearing. The creator of the cosmos, the sustainer of life, the only omnipotent and all knowing being in the universe had just told Abraham to kill his own son. God was supposed to be all good and all loving. Above all, God did his own killing. When towns needed wiping out, God did it himself; an earthquake, fire from heaven or a flood; whatever it took, but God did take care of it himself. He was his own hit man, and he did his own dirty work. And he certainly never asked someone to compromise their morals.

Yet here was God telling Abraham to kill his own son. The very concept seemed so far fetched.

Abraham had always been a loyal follower of his God and did whatever he thought was God’s will. Now he wasn’t so sure. God had just told him to kill his only son, his pride and joy for which he had waited a full lifetime. God had promised that child to him, and now he was asking Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham had never killed anyone in his life. And now his God was expecting him to kill his own son.

God always did his own killing, though, and that’s what bothered Abraham. It certainly wasn’t something God was comfortable with, or enjoyed doing. At least Abraham hoped so. He was having some doubts about that, though. After all, here God was, asking a man to kill another human. Not just another human, his own son. Did God get some sort of sadistic pleasure out of blind faith such as he was asking? Had God given Isaac to Abraham just to provide an innocent victim to test Abraham? Certainly that’s what God was doing, testing Abraham. But that seemed so unlike God. God was omnipotent. God knew the strength of Abraham’s faith. He also knew the strength of Abraham’s morals. God didn’t need to test Abraham. Sadism seemed the only logical conclusion, then.

Abraham was caught in a dilemma. Which did he compromise? God’s direct command or his own morals. Here begins Abraham’s consideration. Does one have a responsibility to God so great that it over-rides all moral considerations? Are morals more important than a command by God? And what would God have done if Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac? Would he have found someone else? Would he have honored Abraham’s decision, maybe even finding favor in Abraham’s moral strength? Was it an open ended test, so that no matter what Abraham chose it would have been right in some way? Or was God looking for an unquestioning follower who had such faith in him that he would even adjust his ethics to obey God? Which is more important: ethics or faith? And would God have even asked Abraham to do such a thing? Would God test someone like that? And then this leads to a questioning of the story of Lot.

I’ll have to do some thinking about this, but I think this has definite possibilities if I handle it well. I can just see this turning eventually into a best-selling novel that is just received incredibly well…the Nobel Prize…the Pulitzer… :)

Biblical Truth

From Prodigy (3/14/93 @ 8:26 PM) there was a note from one Richard Hunt (GCCS87A) that eloquently sums up my opinion of the Bible:

It is not necessary for the Bible to be an accurate historical record for it to be true. The Bible is not a history book but instead a record of men’s encounters with God as remembered and interpreted by the men themselves. Because the encounters are necessarily interpreted by men and reduced to human (and therefore limited) language, they may not accurate reflect God’s own characteristics or motivations. In fact, there are sound literary and historical reasons to view the Bible, and especially the Old Testament, as the record of a developing understanding of God, not as a static revelation.

That is awesome. I need to think about that some more, though.

Thoughts on Predestination

What are my thoughts about predestination? I certainly don’t believe it is God’s way of working with humanity.

Predestination, in its most severe form, takes all responsibility from humans and places it on God. Taken to its logical ends, predestination makes it impossible for anyone to judge someone else or their actions. Criminals cannot be punished because they were just acting as God willed them to. If they are punished it makes both God and the punisher cruel. First, it makes God cruel because he is the cause of the action. Second, it makes the inflicter of punishment cruel because he is punishing a man for something that man had no control over. To put it in a paraphrase of Pelagius, “God holds us responsible for our sins…and that would scarcely be fair unless wehvae the power to stop sinning.” (Placher, History of Christian Theology, 115) Augustine argued that God helps those who cannot help themselves, those who are seduced by and addicted to sin. Therefore, according to Augustine God elects to free some and leave others in slavery.

The question is simple: who acts first, God or man? Does God have to “turn you on” to Christianity, or does man have to first seek God? God, of course, had to act first by creating humanity, then after the entrance of sin by creating a means of salvation. He made the world and built the Yellow Brick Road, but it’s up to us to begin following that road. To say that God both built and guides us to that road makes us little more than God’s toys. This view of God brings to mind a child who re‑enacts in play a story. There’s no room for diviation, for the players (toys, or humans in Augustine’s universe) already have their parts written for them. There’s no rehersal, simply the dry boring performance for the joy of the child. God is not a child who is playing house with the universe. God wrote the play but it’s up to choose which part we will play.

As all of God’s creation is good, though, and becomes evil only when misused or abused, man must have implanted in him some sort of longing to be good. Kreeft says something similar to this in his book Heaven: The Heart’s Deepest Longing. At first I scoffed at this idea, but the more I think of the alternative ‑‑ predestination ‑‑ it seems the only logical path.

Predestination also presents another large problem. Christ died so that all might have eternal life. However, if God only chooses some for salvaion (Or as Gottschalk thought, others to damnation) then Jesus only died for those elect few.

Predestination goes a long way in understanding the sexism often associated with Christianity. Whether it’s just forbidding women to speak in church or saying men have the right to exact their “God‑given authority” by use of physical violence, many Christians feel that men have been given from God authority over women. Some Christians believe that men are born somehow better than women, and that’s how God created it. If someone can believe that God would create someone predestined to be damned for eternity it is certainly easy to think of God creating someone to be inferior during their earthly life.

I reject this notion, though. I refuse to believe that God would create one being inferior to another and that it rests entirely on the chance of being born a woman rather than a man.

3:30 PM

I got a letter from Laurel today. It was mostly pretty boring, but there was something about my apology. She said she “gladly accepts it.” She said she was just a little disgusted with me for not trusting her…that in fact it was an understatement to say she was just a little disgusted with me. That makes me feel really good…I really screwed up there. And again Wednesday. But that’s another story.