A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question?

The following is my reply to an answer to a question that I had asked the local Church of Christ preacher concerning the Bible doctrine of an eternal hell. He had enlisted the help of an older preacher in answering this question and he published this answer in his weekly publication. Quotes from this preacher's article are in bold black letters--by the way, the local preacher never did respond to my reply:

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne 

A Reasonable Answer To A Troublesome Question, is an article written by Maurice Barnett published in the May 9, 2004, edition of Faith Builder. It was Barnett's attempt at answering this question that you presented to him (a question I had asked you): "Why would a God of love create a race of beings, knowing that He would have to sentence the vast majority of them to suffer forever in hell?" The question you presented to him is troublesome, but more important it is devastating to the truth of fundamentalist Christianity if it can't be answered satisfactorily. And Barnett has no satisfactory answer. He meanders around with a lot of irrelevant thoughts, but never even comes close to a satisfactory answer.

What Would An Omni God Have Done?

How could a omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent 
God who has no needs, Acts 17:24-25 [thus there was 
no need that hell even exist] create a humanity with 
free will and the ability to sin--knowing the horrific  
outcome Mt 7:13-14, when he could have created this 
humanity, like him, with free will and the inability to sin?
Thus in truly loving fashion, preventing billions of humans 
from suffering ETERNAL, unimaginable agony in hell-and 
the Bible actually teaches that he doesn't want anyone 
to go to hell 2 Peter 3:9! So there is no reason he couldn't 
and wouldn't have accomplished this--IF this alleged god 
of the Bible has all of these omni characteristics the Bible 
writers claim that he has.

From the Errancy  Discussion list, April 17, 1998:

Some Things To Consider

I left the Church of Christ and Christianity in 2006. The following is a letter I wrote to a member of the congregation that I was a member of shortly after I left--I never received a reply:

by Kenneth Hawthorne

I have some things I would like for you to consider based on our talk at Panera Bread in Sept. Plus some thoughts and questions on the eternal hell taught in the Bible. I have had most of this letter ready for some time, but have just now decided to send it. I have presented some of this information about an eternal hell to you before--with no reply. You have asked me, "Kenneth, how could you?" (i.e., leave Christianity). Well, contained in this letter are some of the reasons how I could and why I did. You obviously think I made a bad decision to leave Christianity; then I would appreciate it if you would tell me why you disagree with the information in this letter. I will be more than happy to listen to what you have to say. 

George Carlin - God Loves You!

George Carlin in an hilarious clip from one of his comedy routines:

"but he loves you"

Quotes

God says do what you wish, but make the wrong choice and you will be tortured for eternity in hell. That's not free will. It's like a man telling his girlfriend, do what you wish, but if you choose to leave me, I will track you down and blow your brains out. When a man says this we call him a psychopath. When god says the same we call him "loving" and build churches in his honor. ~William C. Easttom II

An Omni God And His Eternal Hell (2)

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

The Bible presents its god, Yahweh, as having amazing supernatural characteristics:

1) Omniscient- It is claimed that this god knows all, past, present and future. One very interesting bit of knowledge that this god is claimed to have is found in Mt 7:13-14. This verse teaches that man's ultimate destination is either heaven or hell. And that this god knew before creating the first human, that if he went ahead with this plan to create man found in the Bible, that this version of man would be so flawed that most would wind up in hell.

"God's" Inconsistency

They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be. ~Robert Ingersoll

Muddled Thinking

The muddled thinking of Christians who attempt to defend 
the vicious god of the Bible. From the Errancy discussion 
list, April 29, 1997:

Izz
Such a Lord, who murders innocent babies, is not 
good. God is not good. Of course, the story is a 
myth, it  never really happened. That is besides the 
point. God, as described in the Bible, makes Hitler 
look saintly.  Unfortunately, Hitler was real, but, 
thank God, God isn't. Still, how can you Christians 
worship a God who murders babies? Don't you
people have any morals? Its  bad enough you believe 
in God; what's worse, you are blind to his evil nature. 
You people worship an imaginary baby-killer.

Paul writes:
If this life were all of existance, you might have a point; however
Christians believe that we are primarily "spiritual" creatures made 
in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This life is not all that matters. 
How cruel it would have been to preserve all of those babies of 
hard-hearted idolaters to mature and become like their parents 
only to lose their souls in eternity; but a loving and merciful God 
now has in his care the souls of those innocent children.

TILL
According to this logic, God should see that the children and babies 
of all sinful people are killed before "the age of accountability" so 
that this loving and merciful God could have in his care the souls 
of "these innocent children"? What made the Amalekite children so 
special that God wanted to "preserve" them any more than the 
children of other idolatrous people? We know from archaeological 
discoveries that Aztecs and Incas were idolatrous nations, who 
even  sacrificed children to their gods. Why didn't Yahweh 
"preserve"  their  children so that they wouldn't have grown up 
to be like their  "hard-hearted" idolatrous parents?

This "explanation" of the many Yahwistic massacres recorded in 
the OT is simply a last-ditch effort to explain a problem that is 
completely incompatible with both the biblical inerrancy doctrine 
and  the claim that God is loving and merciful. If for some reason 
the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc. had to be ethnically 
exterminated, there was no reason at all to massacre the children 
and infants too. Why couldn't they have been brought back as 
captives, adopted into Hebrew families, and reared in the way 
that  Hebrew children were? That way, they would not have grown 
up to  be "hard-hearted" idolaters, any more than the Israelites 
themselves  were at times hard-hearted idolaters (but that's 
another story). I'd like to hear Paul's "explanation" of this.

Farrell Till

Children Of A Stupid God

In the following video Pat Condell, in his inimitable fashion, describes the "loving" god of the Bible:

Children of a stupid God

Entities Who Can't Sin

From the Errancy Discussion list, 2-14-99:

The standard argument is that man was given free will, which enabled him to "fall," because without this thing called "free will," humans would have been automatons. Our response to this has been to call attention to the biblical claim that God's nature is such that he cannot do anything that is contrary to objective or absolute morality and then to point out that if it is the case that God cannot do anything contrary to objective morality but is nevertheless an entity that has freedom to choose, then the existence of morally perfect entities that have free will is possible. Why then did God not create humans with this kind of nature? 

Farrell Till

[And I might add, since it is allegedly this God's will that none perish, I Timothy 2:3-4, he would had to have created man like himself, with free will and the inability to sin--but according to other scriptures he didn't create man this way at all, in fact, the Bible teaches that he created man in such a way that MOST would perish, Matt 7:13-14, thus creating the most egregious contradiction in the Bible and relegating the Bible to nothing more than a work of man. KWH]

Responsibility, What Is Yahweh's Policy?

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

Dave Matson asks the question concerning the god of the Bible, Does God Need Praise and Glory?. The Bible clearly teaches that this god wants but doesn't need praise and glory. The men who wrote the Bible wrote themselves into a corner on this one. You see they describe this god as perfect and complete, therefore needing nothing. So these authors of the Bible have him only wanting praise and glory. But even if there are other alleged reasons why he created man, creating man was not something that he needed.

The Bible's authors claim that their god is all-knowing (plus all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise, perfect and complete and a few more I'm probably leaving out). And sure enough in Mt 7:13-14, they claim he knew that the majority of his beloved(?) humans would wind up in his eternal hell. Oops! So the Bible's hapless authors in their attempt to make their god-creation omni-everything, plus have the ultimate in punishment to scare people into their new religion, went too far. They have their all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-wise, perfect and complete  etc., god-creation willing for billions of his allegedly beloved humans to suffer unspeakable horrors in his eternal hell for something he only wanted but didn't need.

Then they have the absolute gall to claim this god loved his human creation so much that he sent his son to be crucified (bloodshed, injustice, pain and murder are around this god like flies on feces) to keep man from going to hell when he knew all along this "wonderful, loving sacrifice" would "save" only a comparative handful. If this sordid tale were true it would be more of an obligation on the part of this god for putting this flawed creation in such a precarious situation to begin with. This is no description of a God of love much less an all-loving God. This is a description of a infinitely terrible fiend. And what kind of an example is this god setting for humans concerning responsibility? The average human is much more responsible than this--responsibility, what's your policy? Every day millions of people choose to do the right thing. It is inconceivable that allowing billions of sentient humans to be tortured for eternity is the right thing. Responsibility, what is Yahweh's policy? His policy is infinite irresponsibility.

The Bible has the Creator allegedly acting in an infinitely horrible, irresponsible manner that no rational, loving human would ever be guilty of. Therefore, the god of the Bible cannot be anything but pure fiction.

God's Eternal Purpose?

The local Church of Christ preacher had the following outline in his weekly bulletin:

God had [and continues to have] an eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:11):

      1. His very nature is purposeful (Isaiah 46:8-11; Jeremiah 4:28; 
          Ephesians  1:11)          
      2. His eternal purpose is to give eternal life (John 10:10,27,28; 
          Titus 1:1,2).

      3. This is not mere eternal existence, but eternal existence with 
          Him (Matthew 25:31-46).

 In The Beginning there was unlimited power  
      1. Defining power: “capacity to produce a desired result".
       2. Various kinds of power; physical, mental, political, legal, moral. 
          Type of power used depends on result desired.

      3. The power of God: all the power necessary to accomplish His 
          eternal purpose.

So, let me see if I've got this right. God (Yahweh) is a purposeful God. And his eternal purpose (def. The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists; something set up as an object or end to be attained), is to give eternal life to man.  And he had all the power necessary to accomplish this eternal purpose--this desired result--in fact this desired result was the purpose of man's creation.

Then why is it that only a FEW (Mt 7:13-14) will attain what this God had all the power necessary to accomplish?

Kenneth W Hawthorne 

Christian Idiocy

The utterly idiotic conclusion that must be drawn from biblical belief, especially considering the New Testament teaching that many will wind up in hell and few in heaven, Mt 7:13-14. From  *The Skeptical Review*, Mailbag 1995 / July-August:

Yet another argument that could be used in refuting the fundamentalist justification of the Bible god's orders to kill infants (that all who die before reaching the "age of accountability" get to go to heaven) is that such actions are unfair to those who die after reaching that "age."

Unlike the rest of us, those babies whom the Bible god wanted killed got to go to heaven for eternity without having to make the conscious decision to accept the right religious creeds. They had no trial period that could've jeopardized their eternal fate. Since all of us were babies before, and since babies don't have much control over what happens to them, it is an absolute travesty of justice that some have gotten to go to heaven simply because they were lucky enough to die during their infancy. It is simply a matter of chance that those of us who didn't die during infancy didn't.

Hope we can set up another debate with you. Keep up the good work.

(Mr.X, name and address withheld by Is It God's Word? blog))

EDITOR'S NOTE: [Mr. X] makes a point similar to what I have argued with fundamentalists who try to justify the Yahwistic massacres of children and babies in the Old Testament on the grounds that they went to heaven instead of growing up to become wicked like their parents. I suggest to those who make this asinine argument that instead of being so eager to send out preachers and missionaries to save the lost, churches should organize hit squads to go into maternity and pediatric wards and kill all of the innocent babies and children so that they will go to heaven instead of growing up to become wicked like their parents. They would probably send far more souls to heaven than they have been doing through evangelization methods. I might also add that rather than bombing abortion clinics and assassinating those who work there, fundamentalists should set up their own clinics and encourage women to use them. Just think how many more souls they would be able to send to heaven. As for the eternal destiny of those who participated in such baby massacres, we would think that a just, benevolent god would surely reward them for their good deeds.

Prayer Problems

From the mailbag section of *The Skeptical Review*, May-June, 1994. A Christian reader of TSR tells Farrell Till that she's praying for him. An excerpt from Till's reply:

...As for the prayers she is uttering for me, I wish I had a nickle for everyone who has told me he is praying for me. There must be thousands of people out there praying for me at any given moment. So I wonder when we can expect to see any results from all these prayers. God wants all men to be saved: "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our saviour, who would have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4). Therefore, if the Bible is truly the infallible word of God, as Mrs. Kaley no doubt believes, then she must agree that God certainly wants Farrell Till to be saved. So I see a dilemma for her when this scripture is considered in conjunction with 1 John 5:14-15: "And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked of him." Now please notice that this passage does not say that if we ask anything according to God's will, he may hear us and grant it; it flatly says that we can know that he hears it and will give us what we ask.

From this, I can only conclude that the New Testament promises that God will hear and grant the prayer of any Christian who asks ANYTHING in accordance with God's will. So since it is obviously God's will that Farrell Till be saved, then why haven't the many prayers on my behalf been answered? I once presented this dilemma to a Baptist preacher who had told me that he was praying for me. His response was that I am not dead yet, so there is still the possibility that I will yet be "saved." I suppose that he is technically right, but if I should die without returning to my former beliefs--and I really don't believe there is even a remote possibility that I will return--would this not constitute logical proof that the Bible is not inerrant?

A God Who "Really Care(s) About Others"?

"People who really care about others use their strength to help and protect them." ~ a comment about the Aurora, CO movie theater murders, July 20, 2012.

If it should be expected that people use their strength to help and protect others, what should be expected from an almighty God? Certainly not allowing the vast majority of people to suffer for eternity, MT 7:13-14, when he could have prevented it.

Kenneth W. Hawthorne

The Logical Aburdity That Is Christianity

The New Testament teaching that most of humanity will be among the lost, Mt 7:13-14, should be a teaching that gives Christians a lot of concern. But not for the reasons you might think. Currently the world population is about 68.5% non-Christian and few of these billions will ever become Christians. Obviously, Christian efforts to evangelize these billions of people are not getting the job done. Logically, this puts Christians in an an absurdly ridiculous position. From the Errancy Discussion list, 4-29-97:

Izz

Such a Lord, who murders innocent babies, is not good. God is not good. Of course, the story is a myth, it never really happened. That is besides the point. God, as described in the Bible, makes Hitler look saintly. Unfortunately, Hitler was real, but, thank God, God isn't. Still, how can you Christians worship a God who murders babies? Don't you people have any morals? Its bad enough you believe in God; what's worse, you are blind to his evil nature. You people worship an imaginary baby-killer.

Paul writes:

If this life were all of existance, you might have a point; however Christians believe that we are primarily "spiritual" creatures made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). This life is not all that matters. How cruel it would have been to preserve all of those babies of hard-hearted idolaters to mature and become like their parents only to lose their souls in eternity; but a loving and merciful God now has in his care the souls of those innocent children.

TILL

According to this logic, God should see that the children and babies of all sinful people are killed before "the age of accountability" so that this loving and merciful God could have in his care the souls of "these innocent children"? What made the Amalekite children so special that God wanted to "preserve" them any more than the children of other idolatrous people? We know from archaeological discoveries that Aztecs and Incas were idolatrous nations, who even sacrificed children to their gods. Why didn't Yahweh "preserve" their children so that they wouldn't have grown up to be like their "hard-hearted" idolatrous parents?

This "explanation" of the many Yahwistic massacres recorded in the OT is simply a last-ditch effort to explain a problem that is completely incompatible with both the biblical inerrancy doctrine and the claim that God is loving and merciful. If for some reason the Amalekites, Midianites, Canaanites, etc., had to be ethnically exterminated, there was no reason at all to massacre the children and infants too. Why couldn't they have been brought back as captives, adopted into Hebrew families, and reared in the way that Hebrew children were? That way, they would not have grown up to be "hard-hearted" idolaters, any more than the Israelites themselves were at times hard-hearted idolaters (but that's another story). I'd like to hear Paul's "explanation" of this.

Farrell Till

The Origin Of God And Heaven, Of The Devil And Hell

by Robert Ingersoll

In the estimation of good orthodox Christians I am a criminal, because I am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally arising from a belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to tear, break, and scatter to the winds the God that priests erected in the fields of innocent pleasure -- a God made of sticks called creeds, and of old clothes called myths. I shall endeavor to take from the coffin its horror, from the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge kindled by an infinite fiend.

Is it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of Hell?

Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler [jailer] hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy.

Against the heartlessness of the Christian religion every grand and tender soul should enter solemn protest. The God of Hell should be held in loathing, contempt and scorn. A God who threatens eternal pain should be hated, not loved -- cursed, not worshiped. A heaven presided over by such a God must be below the lowest hell. I want no part in any heaven in which the saved, the ransomed and redeemed will drown with shouts of joy the cries and sobs of hell -- in which happiness will forget misery, where the tears of the lost only increase laughter and double bliss. 

The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea testifies that our remote ancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves, only from mouths filled with cruel fangs, only from hearts of fear and hatred, only from the conscience of hunger and lust, only from the lowest and most debased could come this most cruel, heartless and bestial of all dogmas.

A Few Questions

These are some questions that I asked a Church-of-Christ preacher after reading an article that he wrote. I don't recall ever getting an answer from him:

Mr -----,

Here are a few questions that I have concerning information in one of your blog posts:

1. Why did God create us in the New Testament scenario, if he knew all would sin, and knew that the many vs the few would eternally perish (Mt. 7:13-14)?  2 Peter 3:9 says that it is not God's will that ANY perish. Did God not have the ability to achieve his will that none perish?

2. If God is omniscient and could see what would happen if he created Satan, why would he go ahead and create Satan knowing that in his attempt to be victorious over Satan, billions of humans would have to eternally perish?

3. Why would God, who doesn't need man (Acts 17:25), nevertheless, go ahead and create man to get some things that he only wanted (victory over Satan, whom he didn't have to create; fear and obedience from man; companionship from man, etc.), but didn't need, knowing that to get these things that he didn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

4. You said that Jesus [dying] on the cross, ...sealed the greatest victory possible. But how could this be considered "the greatest  victory possible" when Satan deceives the whole world (Rev 12:9), disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and blinds the minds of the unbelieving ( 2 Cor 4:4), resulting in Jesus losing the majority of souls to Satan (Mt 7:13-14)?

5. You said that man is a "tool" by which God gets glory. But God doesn't need anything from man, thus he doesn't need glory. Why would God put his beloved(?), flawed humans under the influence of such a powerful being for evil as Satan (whom he didn't have to create) to get something that wasn't necessary--knowing that to get this glory that he doesn't need, billions of sentient humans would have to eternally perish?

Well, I've got a lot more questions I could ask. But I'll stop for now. You've got a lot on your plate with these five.

Ken Hawthorne

A Question For Readers Of This Blog

The following question is directed to anyone who may be reading this. I ask for an answer as well as an explanation of your answer to this question. Thank you in advance for your participation. I hope that your answers and explanations will help start a lively and rewarding discussion of this important issue:

The Bible teaches that its God is all knowing, all powerful, all loving and compassionate, complete and perfect, therefore having no needs, as well as being sovereign. However, the Bible also teaches that its God will send the majority of people to its eternal hell to suffer forever (Matt 7:13-14). Do you agree that these two teachings contradict each other? Please explain.

More Problems With Hell

Good comments from "Celsus" on Amazon.com  from 2009. The discussion is concerning the question, "Do most Christians believe that the majority of humans go to Hell?":

Why the doctrine of hell is illogical and morally corrupt:

1) It is based on the premise that the guilty can be pardoned by the death of an innocent - a notion embraced by many of the most barbaric religions of old.

2) It punishes without the possibility of reforming those being punished. It serves no purpose, other than to inflict torment.

3) It punishes intelligent enquiry (doubt) above all other offences.

4) It allows murderers, rapists, pedophiles and sadists into heaven, while excluding those of saintly character who happen to be unbelievers, potentially resulting in a heaven populated with criminals, and a hell populated with philanthropists.

5) Recent studies have shown that, on average, 97% of people never change from the religion into which they are born and raised. Most are conditioned from birth to distrust all other faiths and to hold fast to their own. Supposing the Bible is true, this means that a person born in Iran is almost guaranteed a place in hell. He will resist Christianity in the same way that a Christian would resist Islam. Heaven or Hell then becomes a lottery, largely dependent on ones place of birth. Is it conceivable that a wise and loving God could have devised a plan whereby the majority of humanity, due largely to factors beyond their control, must suffer forever?