Friday, May 19, 2023

"Flatland and Beyond"

In this post, I want to visit the idea of Flatland again so we can understand Sarge and his reasoning when he brings up his objections to the concept of a good God from the Bible. Remember in our last post we explained Flatland was a novel written in part as a way of explaining what is meant by transcendence in religion. It posits a group of people living in a two-dimensional world, and thus many of the phenomena that can only be understood from a three-dimensional perspective are mysterious to Flatlanders, as the Flatlanders cannot really understand three-dimensional thought. I'm not saying those like Sarge are not as smart as Christians, they just approach the Bible with a different perspective. Their reasoning is from Flatland only and therefore they achieve only a Flat understanding of "the God character" in the Bible. Whereas Christian reasoning is from beyond Flatland (that not being a locale, but simply a realm of thinking), and that gives them an entirely different understanding of the character of God. This doesn't really help Sarge and those like him for they do not believe there is a beyond, but it does explain the different perspectives. Let us take a look at another of Sarge's objections. Next after he presented the idea that God had murdered children because of the sins of their parents he surmises the following statement. 

"Most Christians don’t believe that but they give a pass to their God when he murders innocent children because of the sins of their parents. That is an unabashed emotionless way of thinking because of fear of going to hell if one does not accept the monstrous actions of a horrible God." - Sarge.

Christian theology does not give God a pass on this or ignore it, it simply understands it from a different perspective. The context Sarge is addressing here is the children that died in the Biblical Flood and in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. He then drops in the statement concerning the emotionless way of thinking Christians engage in when they accept such actions by God simply in fear of going to hell if they do not. The Christian is certainly not emotionless concerning the judgment of God in any measure nor do they fear going to hell. What Sarge is referring to I think is the doctrine of Original Sin. However, that doctrine does not suggest children die because of the sins of their parents. It suggests we all die because of the sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. It is possible he could also have in mind a few scriptures such as:  

Exodus 34:6-7 ESV

(6)  The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,

(7)  keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

However, those scriptures do not address original sin, hell, or the death of children. The context is relating to Israel as a nation and the Covenant of blessings and curses they were under in that dispensation, and does not apply in the context of this discussion. 

So what is the doctrine of original sin and this issue with the forbidden fruit? It could be asked why one today is judged a sinner because of Adam and his sin? Hey, I didn't eat the fruit! Well, all men were naturally and seminally in him; as he was the common parent of mankind, he had all human nature in him, and was also the covenant head, and representative of all his posterity; so that they were in him both naturally and federally, and so "sinned in him"; and fell with him by his first transgression into condemnation and death. 

In other words, what Adam was we are, both by legal and natural association. By the nature of his sin he is rebellious, so by birth, all human nature is rebellious through him. Though young children may not have yet sinned in Adam's likeness, the nature of rebellion resides in them. Legally, we are associated with Adam Federally. Federal headship refers to the representation of a group united under a federation or covenant. For example, a country's president may be seen as the federal head of the nation, representing and speaking on its behalf before the rest of the world. If a nation goes to war, (Constitutionally here by Congress) every individual associated with that nation is considered to be at war. Paul explains it this way:

 Romans 5:12 ESV
(12)  Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

If you want to prove this logic as a fallacy, then simply don't sin. For many this is unacceptable, they refuse to be associated with anything but their own autonomy. However, to the Christian, this is a wonderful and necessary thing. It is what makes our redemption possible, Paul explains:

Romans 5:17-19 ESV
(17)  For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
(18)  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
(19)  For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

Adam's sin being imputed to us makes it possible for Christ's righteousness also to be imputed to us. Though we didn't actually commit Adam's sin, it was accounted to and passed on to us, likewise, we didn't commit Christ's righteousness, yet it is accounted to and passed on to those who accept His righteousness as their own, this is called faith. 

Sarge continues his reasoning with a further objection, "You also claim non-believers will meet their fate but you ignore the fact that many in the world are not non-believers but simply believe in a different mythical God or deity. So, because an individual was born in the wrong nation and was raised to believe in their non-Christian cultural religion they will go to hell.

So a loving compassionate God shows no mercy for the cultural indoctrination of the young into a non-Christian religion. I think that is a huge problem." - Sarge   

That fact is certainly not ignored, it is logically deduced from Paul's statements above in Romans 5. It is not a belief in God or lack thereof that answers to the lack of man's unrighteousness. All other religions offer a path to heaven by some means by which a man can appease God by some work or righteousness of his own. But according to Biblical truth (which Sarge would say does not exist), man has no righteousness, therefore he must depend upon the righteousness of another. No other religion has Christ, therefore, what all other religions offer is nothing more than unbelief. They are not condemned because they were culturally indoctrinated from their youth into a different religion, they were condemned already as all men are by their very nature. On the contrary, God has shown great mercy to them as well as all men!  

Ephesians 2:3-5 ESV
(3)  among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
(4)  But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us,
(5)  even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—

Salvation is not by the works of some religion or goodness we might want to present on our behalf, but by grace and grace alone. 

Yet another objection presented is, "You state it is a misconception to think those in hell would repent if given another chance. How do you know that? You don't.

You say they hated God and the concept of God and religion, but that has not changed and will not change. Again, how do you know that? You don't." - Sarge

Actually, I do, because repentance is a gift from God, without which, because of his nature he will never repent.  Acts 11:17-18 ESV
(17)  If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?”
(18)  When they heard these things they fell silent. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life.”

Again we return to the beginning of this conversation concerning the nature of man, if going to hell changes his nature, then there would be no one there. Paul continues his examination of this nature in Romans 8:7 ESV
(7)  For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

A man's mind or nature is hostile toward God, being in hell does not change this. If one dies hostile toward God, he will always be hostile toward God. Torment does not change one's mind, it only hardens its resolve. Revelation 16:21 ESV
(21)  And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe. Does one really think hell will cause people there to love God, it will only cause them to curse Him all the more! 

In the midst of these objections, Sarge issues a challenge, "You say atheists don't believe in the reality of God (please prove God is real because that has yet to be done), so it must be the concept of a deity they deem so harmful." - Sarge

You are correct Sarge, for as of yet you are not convinced. When a case is presented before a jury, an argument both for and against the defendant is made. In the mind of this jury in Flatland, the existence of God is still out, for many refuse to believe. However, some are convinced and believe, just because the jury is locked, does not mean the case is settled. The actual case is not if God is real, it is whether men are good or bad. If he is proven to be good, then all is well, if he is bad, we still have a problem.  

Then we have one final objection, "You finally said something kinda right because atheists do believe it is harmful to believe in a deity when believers do things that are harmful to others like killing those who don't believe in their deity, i.e. the Christian Crusades. It isn’t the concept of deity that is harmful, it is the belief in a nonexistent God that can prove to be harmful to others.

How about when some Christians deny their child life-saving medical care because they believe their God will heal their child and then that child dies? That is a harmful belief in a nonexistent God." - Sarge

I would agree with you wholly in that respect Sarge. This again takes us back to the beginning of this conversation and the nature of man. Christianity has never harmed a single soul, it is the fountain of life and peace to any society. The Christian Crusades were not Christian, they are the results of fallen men in what has been called Christendom. They stand in history as a warning to us concerning the danger of Christian nationalism and cultural Christianity. The Apostle Paul never called the church to take up arms against Rome, to overthrow the government, or to create a Christian State. Quite to the contrary, he called for Christians to support and uphold the civil authority of the day, which was one of the most corrupt and unjust in history. 

1 Timothy 2:1-4 ESV
(1)  First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people,
(2)  for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.
(3)  This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior,
(4)  who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The Church is never called to go into other nations and conquer by military conquest. It is commanded to go into all the nations of the world and proclaim the Gospel, it is our only great commission!

Matthew 28:19-20 ESV
(19)  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
(20)  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Be very careful how you read those statements above, it is not to say the Church is to support and encourage corruption in governmental affairs. We are to exert as much influence upon civil society as we can through being good citizens and living and proclaiming the Gospel. Our prayers are for all those in authority (Christian or non-Christian) in their civil stations that they would be moved toward righteous ends and execute good judgment. The Church is not a political mechanism nor equipped to engage in civil government. It is a called-out assembly of people throughout the world dedicated to the Worship of the triune God Yahweh.

Briefly concerning the denying of life-saving medical care to a child, that certainly is not a Christian practice. It is a result of the foolishness of men's minds and a criminal act in its execution. There are many dangerous and harmful religions formed by the minds of men. Their existence demonstrates the great need for the proclamation of the true Gospel throughout the world. 

2 Corinthians 11:4 ESV
(4)  For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
2 Corinthians 11:12-13 ESV
(12)  And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
(13)  For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.

  I only address that statement at all because it does occur. There are many religious groups that make claims to be inside the Christian faith and perhaps even hold to some Christian doctrines. However, what they do hold in similarity is poisoned by false teaching and crafty men that pray upon simple-minded people who are superstitious by nature and they do cause great harm. Sarge is correct and has every right to be concerned with these groups and any dangerous religion. His only error is failing to distinguish between the Gospel and these groups.

David         

1 comment:

  1. There is so much to respond to in this blog. Unfortunately, I don't have the time, at the moment, to respond to all the inaccurate assertions or misguided reasoning made by my good friend David. I will respond to the entirety of this blog at a later date because I am about to leave on vacation, and I don't have time to respond to the entire blog in a coherent and thoughtful way. That will be sometime in July or August. I'm putting it in my calendar, so I don't forget.

    I the meantime, I must respond to one thing David commented on, perspective. David promotes the idea I see things from an atheist view, and he sees things from a Christian view. That's true. Therefore, we see things differently. We have different perspectives. That may be true to some extent but that is a sallow defense for an out-of-control God killing babies and Children.

    David believes because I don't view Gods massacre of the world population (Noah's flood) as a believer, I can't possibly understand the reasoning for the massacre, the killing (murder, infanticide) of innocent children and babies. According to David, as an atheist, I can only see senseless death and not the divine intervention of a merciful God. David, as a Christian apologist, and from his perspective, sees the massacre of the human race including innocent infants and children as God's divine right and justice. My dear friend David, what a bunch of gobbledygook (nonsense).

    The killing of innocent children and infants by God for any reason and from any perspective is an abominable act by an unrestrained monster. Many Christians disapprove of abortion (as I do), yet they take it in stride the mass killings of living children and babies. They do give God "a pass" on this evil act.

    Perspective? Let's look at Noah's flood from a child's perspective. A four-year-old girl is placed on higher ground by her parents who are about to be washed away by the ravaging flood waters. As the little girl's parents are washed away along with everything else the little girl knows of her world, she stands alone shivering in fright and shock and cries hopelessly out loud for her mom and dad before she too is washed away. A defenseless innocent little girl is destroyed after suffering the horror of watching her loved ones and the world around here disappear destroyed by a terrorist. Perspective? All of that was made possible by raving out-of-control heartless God. How could anyone see that differently, regardless of one's belief or non-belief, perspective?

    But, let our hearts not be troubled, from a Christian perspective, God's wrath of destruction and infanticide is a matter of divine intervention for a world gone astray. Christian will understand, or, at the very least accept his justice. Why? For a loving God can do no wrong, no matter how macabre his actions are or how innocent and young his victims are. That my friends, is the danger of religion, blind faith! Humanity, compassion becomes selective to faith and religion.

    It's interesting that a world designed by a God that is said to not be capable of doing anything wrong had to destroy the world he created because it went wrong. A world gone wrong that apparently God didn't see coming. I thought God knew everything, including the future.

    Thankfully, the out-of-control angry God and his infanticide and mass murder is only a mythical story and not reality. Regrettably, too many people believe it true and poisons their perspective on reality and true justice.

    Until next time, this is Sarge (formerly known as Gene) signing out!

    ReplyDelete