A Reply to Atheism Part 3: Historical Nonsense

It is a very difficult task to prove to an atheist that God does exist, when proof is all preferential. What I mean is that we determine truth in very different ways while looking at the same evidence. I could explain that anyone looking for proof of God's existence should look no further than the tip of their own noses and marvel at the complexity and design of human life, let alone the environment they find themselves in and the incredible capacity of man to dream, scheme, and accomplish just about anything he sets his mind to.

An atheist could point to the same “evidence” I listed and marvel at how wonderfully advanced man is considering what he came from, and think only of accomplishments while dismissing any silly notion of a creator designing man to have such capacity. An atheist can claim that there is no evidence of God, and dismiss religion as folly, where as a believer could point to everything as proof of existence of God and dismiss the intentions of man as folly. In other words, we all have the same “evidence”, but it is viewed and interpreted vastly differently depending on what worldview you presume to hold.

The same can be said in interpreting historical events. For instance, there are a lot of people who rightfully point out that the story of a global flood as written in Genesis, is not unique at all and that it exists in many other traditional religions, such as Greek mythology (Babylon), Mesoamerican (Aztec), several Aboriginal stories (Australia), Hinduism, Native American, among others. Their claim is that the flood never actually existed, at least not on a global scale, and that the proof is in how many other religions include this unlikely story of a global flood, and a hero who escapes on a giant vessel with his family and some animals.

I could take the same information however, and point to the fact that every religion mentioned here somehow manages to reach every region of the Earth, and if this did in fact take place, then naturally it would be part of that cultures heritage as a literal known event passed down from generation to generation starting with Noah himself.

My point here is that we all have the same evidence, and it's how we interpret the evidence that determines our belief. I am not an historian, nor a scientist, so I will leave a lot of the technical debate up to those who spend their lives researching these things, and all information I share here is public information and not something I discovered and am currently sitting on while waiting for a book deal.

The institution of Science is a vast body of educated men and women, with differing opinions, and intentions in their field. A scientific consensus is not a concrete fact but rather an established truth that is based on the most likely outcome as determined by those doing the research. There are many Scientists on both sides of any issue when determining things that cannot be concretely determined. As I mentioned, we all have the same evidence before us, but the difference lies in the presupposition one might hold in examining such evidence. There are many scientists who believe the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and there are many who think it less than 10,000 years old. From both sides people tend to scoff at the other, but when you read how it all breaks down and how scientists had come to determine such age, you'll find that it all comes back to mathematics starting with a presupposed theory. I could care less if the Earth was thousands, or billions of years old, and I don't think my faith is determined by what is true in this discussion. Civilization itself is less than 10,000 years old, so we can start there and determine whether or not the events of the Bible were true, or if they were based on superstitious lore handed out by the nearest pagan culture.

If you wanted to research the age of the Earth or whether or not a flood occurred, there are plenty of articles online that come from all different viewpoints and arrive at all different conclusions. A great place to start in researching the science from an “Intelligent Design” angle would be the website “answersingenesis.org” which not only bolsters a top rated cast of ID Scientists, but also attempts to answer all of these questions in articles that range from simple, to incredibly complex. Have at it.

As for this particular article, I wanted to address two of the most common and crippling charges people might make against historical Christianity. These two questions led me to almost throw in the towel myself, and are the main talking points people like Bill Maher use in attacking the Christian faith.

No Records of Israelites in Egypt as Slaves or of the Plagues

For years now archaeologists have been trying to find proof of a large settlement of slaves near Egypt, that Egypt actually had slaves at the time the Hebrew's were thought to be there, and if in fact many plagues destroyed parts of Egypt and that this large group of 2 million people actually left, on foot, through a divided sea that wound up consuming Pharaohs men as they pursued them. People rightly point out that they have yet to find any records of any such events taking place, and that surely there would be some evidence given just the sheer size of the population that left. There are countless articles that state that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the claims of the Bible, and that it is a myth.

Back when I first encountered this argument, I read many articles that made similar claims. I remember being troubled over this as I looked for any answer whatsoever that could explain this lack of evidence. The Bible seemed so descriptive, even with it's story about Joseph and his rise to fame in and prominence in Egypt, his grain silos, and even an Egyptian royal burial, yet the accusation of it never occurring stared at me, unmoving, daring me to prove it wrong. Then I came across a small thread of discussions that made the charge that our decades old understanding on Egyptian history, dynasties, and all recorded events might be seriously flawed. Apparently there were some making the claim that the occupation of the Israelite slaves would have actually been during a different dynasty altogether, and that if we simply move from the 18^th dynasty to the 12^th, everything begins to make sense and actually line up with not only the claims of the Bible, but also the time-line given.

First of all, and this is a common talking point, the Egyptians were not known for recording defeats or embarrassing events, such as a large group of slaves overthrowing the government, so it would be hard to find any official record of the plagues and the journey to Canaan that cost the Pharaoh many lives. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that Egypt tended to rewrite it's own history, and could have just simply pretended that this never happened, even when it comes to giving credit to those Hebrew's who helped build their pyramids. However, Joseph being an important and celebrated figure, there must be some account for his presence there, right? Funny you should ask.

There is a figure, known as Imhotep who served as vizier of Pharaoh Djoser during the 3^rd Dynasty, who was known as the chief designer of the step pyramid, which had a design used all over Egypt at that time, and was known to store grain. What's more, the “famine stele” found near the first cataract of the Nile tells the story of Djoser's dream, and how he asked Imhotep to help save Egypt from the coming seven years of famine. In fact, if you haven't guessed it yet, there are many who believe Imhotep and Joseph were in fact the same person, and the similarities went on to describe not only how he bought up a lot of the land except for that belonging to priests, charged a 20% tax, married the daughter of a high priest, and lived to be 110, serving multiple Pharaohs.

Okay, so Imhotep (Joseph) became sort of a god after he died and there is no mention of his connection with the Hebrew slaves, but why would there be? He was an important figure that literally saved Egypt, and held influence across the land up until his death. The fact that his descendants wound up getting forced into slave labor, and that the Pharaohs who ruled during this time knew very little of Imhotep's heritage, let alone the growing Hebrew population in a near by settlement, means nothing in terms of it actually happening. The question then is, if the Hebrew population had grown so much over the course of four hundred years, is there credible evidence to prove that they were there outside of the Bible?

Again, according to the popular timeline of Dynasties and legend (which has been in place since the 1920's), the answer is a resounding no. If we do however, go back to an earlier time, and follow the actual period spoken of in the Biblical texts, we see a much clearer picture.

First of all, a “workers village” has been discovered, and this discovery goes back to the late 1800's. It appeared whoever dwelled there, lived during the 12^th dynasty, and vacated it shortly into the 13^th dynasty leaving behind numerous artifacts and tools that were used to make mud bricks. This is not necessarily proof that this was occupied by the Hebrew's, but the fact that they were workers who made mud bricks, lines up completely with what Exodus tells us about the type of slave labor they were subjected to. It's also important to note that during the discovery, they found boxes under the floors of the homes that contained the remains of babies up to three months old, which was believed to be the remains of the Hebrew babies killed on Pharaoh's orders around the time of Moses' birth. Another interesting thing is that the 12^th dynasty actually used mud bricks laced with straw in their pyramids serving as a core for the structures. The Labyrinth built by Amenhemet III (sixth pharaoh of the 12^th dynasty) at Hawara was made out of mud bricks too, as well as many houses and other structures, which all would have taken a huge slave labor force to build. In fact it was common knowledge around the time of Christ that the Hebrew's had actually built the pyramids in the Egypt. (One of the harshest criticisms this story has faced is how the secular timeline given puts Israel's occupation in Egypt long after they had stopped making pyramids, where as the new timeline actually puts them in the middle of it all, and even explains why Egypt stopped making them in the 13^th dynasty, you know, due to their labor force up and leaving).


Also, the Pharaoh who built the last pyramids was Amenhemet III, and had no sons. When he died, his daughter took over the throne for only 8 years before she too died and the 12^th Dynasty ended. There was a figure however known as Amenhemet IV who is believed to be an adopted son of Amenhemet III and raised by his daughter. The interesting thing about this person is that he seemed to have ruled with Pharaoh for several years, but then suddenly disappeared. There is no further trace of him in Egypt's records, and no one even seems to know where he is buried. As you may recall, the person of Moses was an adopted son in Pharaohs house, who ran away after he killed an Egyptian official for hitting a Hebrew slave, and only resurfaced forty years later prior to the Exodus.
Piecing the rest of this together, we know that the 13^th dynasty didn't last all that long and held very short terms for it's Pharaohs, the longest reign was only 11 years. It is believed that the Pharaoh who Moses would have confronted at the time was named Neferhotep I. The settlements believed to be occupied by slaves were occupied up until his reign, and there is very little word on what happened to him, not to mention the fact that his body has yet to be discovered. Following his death, the Hyksos (Amalekites) invaded Egypt with very little resistance, which would have made sense if the strongest men of Egypt were all dead laying at the bottom of the red sea.

Perhaps the case I am making would be more significant if Egypt had kept records of all that occurred, but remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are plenty of facts surrounding this story that line up very clearly with Biblical texts, and it doesn't take a great leap of faith to see the connection. I have discovered that we barely know anything about the ancient world, and what we do know is pieced together by presumed conclusions. Even if we presume that the writers of the Bible inserted their own superstitious ideologies about God, we can be assured that it is still a useful book as one of the most intact recounts of historical events (With the exception of the creation story in which no man was actually there to witness the events that took place).

What we do seem to know a lot about however is ancient Rome, which was one of the largest Empires in the ancient world and still holds a steady influence over modern politics, engineering, law, language, and other very useful societal traits that can be traced back to the culture and influence it held on the region and the tens of millions of people who called it home. We know with certainty that Rome occupied the city of Jerusalem, and that they held authority over the Jewish people. We know that the new Testament was written during this occupation, and that the writers of the books and letters all grew up under it's authority while trying to stay true to their own faith and religious practices. There is no one who would refute that this happened, but there has been a growing population of skeptics who think either the story of Jesus never happened, or that if it did, it became that of legends shortly after when the writers took great liberty to make this story so much more significant than it actually was.

Isn't the Story of Jesus Based on Ancient Myth and Not Actual Events?

Anyone who has heard Bill Maher discussing religions, namely Christianity, knows that his objections to the faith tend to rely heavily on the knowledge he holds of a certain god in Egypt named Horus. He dismisses the Christian myth with a wave of his hand as being superstitious and outdated, and incredibly misleading as it lies heavily on a story that existed thousands of years prior to Jesus entering the scene, and even shows up in the story of Buddha some 400 years prior.

If the story of Jesus is in fact, well, not factual, then the crux of what the gospel is built on is nothing more than legend prescribed to a man who riled up a few religious leaders, and started a rag-tag band of misfits who tried to gain power and influence over their oppressors.
This was the second question I was confronted with that almost made me throw in the towel. However, unlike the story of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, this one is much more easily explained, and if you follow along, you'll see what I mean.

The similarities between Jesus and Horus are astounding, in that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, had 12 disciples, was crucified, and rose from the grave 3 days later. This story can be traced back to the early 1900's, when a poet, and self-taught Egyptologist named Gerald Massey published a book called “Ancient Egypt: Light of the World”. In his book, Massey argues that the story of Jesus borrows heavily from ancient Egypt mythology, and goes on to cite over 250 parallels between the two figures of Massey and Jesus. Massey makes the effort of pointing out that the story of Christ was actually concocted by Roman officials as a means of controlling the masses. (his theory has actually picked up a lot of steam in recent years and there is a growing group of people who believe that this was in fact what Rome did, and they had no idea it would become something so powerful, even though this actually lacks any clear evidence).
It's important to note, before we get into this much further, that Massey's work has never actually been taken seriously by scholars. His book is a weird mix of historical speculation, philology, and theorizing about the precession of the zodiac, all presented as fact with minimal supporting evidence.

So let's start with the charge that Horus was from a virgin birth. The most common story from the ancient world about Horus actually was much different. The most common legend about the birth of Horus is that the god Seth dismembered the body of Osiris, his older brother and husband of Isis. Isis collected the pieces of her husband’s body and sewed them back together, then took the form of a bird and fanned Osiris with her wings, reviving him enough to have sex and get herself pregnant with Horus. Not exactly a virgin birth story, is it? So where do we get the idea that legend would have him born of a virgin? Well, the origin seems to lie with Massey himself as all other accounts found in historical writings and retellings seem to not mention this little tidbit of being born from a virgin, and since Massey gives little reference for his discovery, we are left to conclude that his conclusion was less than...well, conclusive. In fact this claim of being born of a virgin seems to be in many different legends, yet none physically predating Christ. For instance the story of Buddha being born of a virgin may take place historically several hundred years before Christ, but the written form seems to have been recorded around the same time the first missionaries would have traveled to these eastern countries in the first and second centuries. This would also explain why Hinduism seems to have many similar stories, given the fact that missionaries traveled as far as India, and well into these cultures that adopted the stories into their own canon of important figures. It would make more sense to claim that these stories were based on the story of Jesus rather than the other way around, even though the claims seem to be prescribed to deities and figures that predated Christ.

As for the crucifixion and resurrection, well this seems to be based on the story where Osiris, Horus' father, was nailed into a coffin (not crucified) by Seth and revived long enough to essentially be a sperm donor before dying again. It is important to understand how significant the story of Jesus was to the regions in which the gospel spread. Respectable Romans left their own security to join these illegal groups noting that their passion and willingness to die for their beliefs was beyond intriguing, and that in time it gained enough power and influence to literally be the religion of Rome only a few hundred years after it's inception. While the story of Jesus might still be in question, we do have many surviving texts from that era that show the fervor and dedication of it's followers, the simple and moralistic lifestyle of those who followed it's teachings, and the impact it had on Rome itself. Whether or not Jesus was as divine as the story claims, no one can dispute the impact the story of Christ has had on the ancient and modern world. Like any important figure throughout history, legend does seem to follow by those who encounter the story, and we have many writings from that era that are considered false, mystical, or just outright crazy, but one thing has remained constant, and that is the message that Jesus preached and the impact his followers had in giving of themselves to a cause even unto death, based on what they knew to be true.

Forget the western brand of Christianity for a moment, and look to movements around the world that are much more in line with the teachings of Jesus and the early Church movement. What you find is the same spirit alive today as it was two thousand years ago. Communities (often living illegally) fueled by their passion of God, and love for one another.

Next up,
Blood Shed and the God of the Old Testament

A Reply to Atheism Part 2: A Good God Wouldn't Send People to Hell

A couple of years ago when Rob Bell's book came out titled “Love Wins”, he received a hell storm of critics calling him a Universalist and heretic. Naturally this made me want to read the book that much more considering the fact that I enjoy reading things that the orthodox might consider heretical. I enjoy thinking for myself and don't shy away from exposing myself to different viewpoints and interpretations of scripture, even going so far as to enjoy a little gnostic reading from time to time (though I have yet to find a gnostic book that is anything less than imaginative mysticism.) Things the church have banned or tried to destroy always perks up my interest, and so I happily exposed myself to all the heretical lies (supposed) that Rob Bell would write about in terms of hell and our misperceptions of the afterlife. The truth is however, that many of the thoughts and conclusions he reached in his book were actually not all that unbelievable, didn't seem all that heretical, and that I had already arrived at similar conclusions in my own studies.

Now just to make this clear, I do think Rob Bell took some liberties with his literal interpretations of the afterlife and I enjoy letting a lot of what the afterlife is remain a mystery. I don't read the book of Revelations all that frequently, but when I do, I do so with the intention of letting my imagination picture the scenes that John describes, and in not allowing myself to get too eager in arriving at any conclusions other than that which is obvious. I interpret the whole Bible that way. If a scripture is troubling, I dwell on it, I consider it's implications, and then I do a little research on it's background, original meaning, and how it relates to what the author or speaker is saying.

Perhaps there is no doctrine more troubling to the stoic mind than that of hell. The very notion of a “good God” giving people eighty years to get it right, and then punishing them for all eternity for getting it wrong is a little unsettling. This has led many to leave the faith, and in my opinion rightly so, as Darwin once explained, "I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” I know as a Christian I must believe the Bible as truth, but what does the Bible actually say about hell? It's strange to me that very few Christians I know are willing to look into this matter, when what we believe about hell has so many implications.

People used to consider hell a physical place of fiery torment, such as the sun, or some hidden chamber deep in the Earth. In recent years the majority of people seem to think of it as a spiritual place (as it exists after death and deals with man's spiritual soul and not physical body) and thus the unquenchable flames are simply used as a metaphor to describe the pain and torment caused by being distant from our creator for all eternity. The equation is simple: Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior, and enjoy a blissful afterlife where there is no more sorrow, and only joy. Deny Jesus Christ, and enjoy a painful afterlife where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever.
There are a lot of problems one might have in believing how this all works in relations to the afterlife. What about those who grew up in the wrong part of the world and never got the chance to hear the name of Jesus let alone make a conscious decision to follow Him? What about those who were born at the wrong time and died before the missionaries came? Christians have a knack for dismissing such difficult questions with rhetorical answers about God's nature being evident in creation, and Catholic Church offers a more structured understanding of this in their Catechism of the Catholic in Church which says: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

This explanation is a great attempt at the Church trying to reconcile the fact that there are many who will never hear the name of Jesus, and how then could we expect a loving, or just God to send these people off into eternal damnation? They must be given a chance prior to dying, or once they die their fate is sealed. What then do we have to say about the people who reject the gospel message not because of what the message says but because of it's messengers? The people who may have been sexually abused by a Christian leader, or someone whose Church going alcoholic father revealed Christianity to be nothing but a realm of hypocrites and do-good busybodies? What about the person who was snubbed by the Church for being a homosexual, or for that fact, the man who wore his hair too long and listened to rock music in the 70's? There are a lot of reasons people do not profess Christ to be their Lord and savior, but I insist that the majority of the reasons come down to the messenger and not the message.

A Pastor's fall from stature, a crazy bible thumping neighbor, a hypocritical father, an abusive marriage, a Sunday morning experience that seemed hostile and less than inviting, a childhood friend who got all religious and threatened you with the fires of hell, and crooked politicians claiming to represent the faith. All of these and many more are perfectly good reasons for anyone to be turned off to the gospel of Jesus. Yes, we insist that the imperfection of the faithful is actually our best ministry tool, but then we build up our expectations to be holy and above reproach when addressing these issues. Let's not forget as well the horrific experience one might have of reading the bible, and not only coming across crazy stories of talking Donkey's and the Earth standing still, but also encountering several stories where God orders His people to commit genocide, and even gets his “friend” Abraham to come inches away from sacrificing his son. I still say however that the hardest doctrine to fathom is that which the Church believes about hell and what the Bible seems to say about the fate of all those who get it wrong.

It seems unfair that a loving God would allow so many to be deceived, to walk around with blinders on, to not call them or open their eyes, and then in the end punish them for not accepting something that always seemed to be out of their reach. You can say that I have no right to question God on these things, and you are correct, but I do have a right to question the Church and what it believes when it appears the Bible actually says something else entirely. So let me then go a bit deeper into what the Bible teaches about the afterlife, judgment, and punishment for all those who don't believe.

Our misconceptions of hell

Try this on for size: the Jewish people don't really have much to say about the afterlife. In fact throughout the Torah, the only mention of the afterlife came in speaking of the world to come. No mention of heaven or hell, well except in terms of speaking of the sky and atmosphere, and when speaking of “sheol”, which could also be translated hades, they mean grave. It's odd then that with the exception of speaking of the world during the messianic age, there is very little thought given to the afterlife.

In fact, the early Church didn't really have much to say about the afterlife as well. Now, before you brand me as a heretic, I want you to hear me out. It might be hard to understand how our view of the afterlife today might be a bit skewed in comparison to the scripture we think it is based upon, but it's important to understand the original context. I will lead you through it and in the end state where I stand on this issue. For now just take it as a history lesson, and let's not quarrel over loose interpretations, as I think you'll find my understanding of scripture is more literal than loose fitting. If you are an atheist who cares little for this, then meet me at the end of this essay and I'll explain how this literal understanding of scripture is much more digestible than what the past 1,600 years of biblical interpretation has led to.

First of all, the Bible speaks of three hells. From the original languages in the which the Bible was written, one Hebrew word, and three Greek words are translated “hell” in our English language Bibles. As we've already discussed, the one Hebrew word is “sheol”, which has the same meaning as one of the Greek words “hades” which (regardless of what you might have heard) both refer simply to the grave. The Hebrew word “sheol” is used in the Old Testament 65 times, and the Greek word “hades” is used only 11 times in the New Testament.

The second Greek word, “tartaroo” is also translated hell in the New Testament, but was only used once in the Bible. 2 Peter 2:4, “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell(tartaroo) and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;”. Here tartaroo is translated into the word hell, but tartaroo was an actual place in Greek mythology where the rebellious gods were confined (somewhat of an abyss). In spite of it's Greek implications, Peter was actually explaining how the sinning angels were delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment. The place is not referring to some fiery pit of hell, but rather their confinement on Earth, where they wield influence over the nations and individuals. Jesus and His apostles had very real encounters with Satan and his demons. Jesus even referred to Satan as the ruler of this world. The word tartaroo applies only to demons. Nowhere does it refer to a fiery hell in which human beings are punished after death.

The final Greek word is “gehenna”, which is used by Jesus several times and tends to be the one word associated most frequently with our common view of hell. The word is derived from Hebrew Gai-Hinnom, which translates “the valley of Hinnom. This Valley shows up frequently in the Old Testament, mentioned in passing by Joshua, and found in 2 Kings 23 as a place of idolatrous and human sacrifices. King Josiah (of Judah) decided to put an end to these abominations by polluting it with human bones and other corruptions.
At the time of Jesus this valley was what we might call the city dump-the place where trash was thrown and consumed in the fires that constantly burned there. The bodies of animals as well as despised criminals were also cast into Gehenna to be burned. Jesus used this particular location and what took place there to help His listeners clearly understand the fate the unrepentant will suffer in the future. They would have easily grasped what he meant.

Consider then what Jesus meant when He said in Mark 9:47-48: “If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell (Gehenna), where 'their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched'”. Notice that the last part about the worm and fire is in quotations, as Jesus is actually quoting here from Isaiah 66:24 which says, “Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” In context, Isaiah 66 refers to a time when, God says, “all flesh shall come to worship before Me”. It's a time when the wicked will be no more, and people will go out and look upon their dead bodies and see the consequences of living a life in rebellion, which results in physical death where even their remains would be devoured by worms and consumed by unquenchable fire until there is nothing left.
According to the “Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament”, the original Hebrew word translated “worm” in Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:47-48 means “worm, maggot, larvae”. The reason I want to point this out is to let you know that Jesus was not speaking of immortal worms, but rather the cycle of maggots and how they consumed flesh. Maggots would live sustained by flesh to turn into flies, the flies would lay eggs that hatch into more maggots, and on and on until there is nothing left. So what does Jesus mean when he speaks of unquenchable fire? Well, as I pointed out in speaking of the verse in Isaiah, the fires will burn until there is nothing left to consume. Traditionally speaking in Hebrew culture, a body that was not buried, but was subjected to burning, was viewed as accursed.

In short, Jesus uses a common site of trash disposal in His day, the burning garbage dump in the Valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem's walls, to illustrate the ultimate fate of the wicked in what scriptures call a lake of fire. Just as the refuse of the city was consumed by maggots and fire, so will the wicked be burned up, consumed, by a future gehenna like fire more than 1,000 years after Christ's return.

So what is the point you ask? Perhaps I should answer your question with a question...does God punish people by throwing them into a fiery pit of damnation to suffer for all eternity? I personally don't think the Bible ever really says that. Do I believe that some will go to “gehenna” and be consumed until there is nothing left? Yes, but I think this act must be voluntary and of freewill. This is not to confuse freewill with choices made while being deceived, but a literal choice made to rather face the fires that destroy, than to accept the free gift of salvation and enter into eternity. Notice I draw a distinction between the lake of fire, and eternity. Think for a moment what Jesus meant in Matthew 10:28, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (gehenna).” Notice here that Jesus does not speak of people suffering everlasting torment. He says that God can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna fire.

Jesus here explains that, when one man kills another, the resulting death is only temporary because God can raise the victim to life again. But when God destroys one in hell (gehenna), the resulting death is eternal. There is no resurrection from this fate, which the Bible calls “the second death”.
Lastly, and then I'll move on, for those of you who are hung up on the word “everlasting” and ready to pounce on all the holes in my theology, let's look a bit more closely at what the word “everlasting” actually implies in terms of this gehenna fire.

The word “everlasting” comes from the Greek word “aionios”, which actually does translate as something eternal, without beginning or end, etc. The use of this word in scripture however is not as cut and dry as it appears. For instance, the book of Jude mentions Sodom and Gamorrah as “suffering the vengeance of eternal (aionios) fire”, yet it is obvious that these cities are not still burning. In the case of these cities, and in the case of the wicked, who are consigned “aionios” fire, the first burns and completely destroys. But the eternal aspect of the fire is it's everlasting effect, not how long it actually burns. It's like dropping a wad of cash into an open fire, no matter how much you wish you could get it back, once the act is done, it's done. That money is literally gone for eternity.

Does this mean that I don't believe in a literal hell? Of course not, as long as you don't hold me to your idea of what that literal hell might be. Perhaps this is where I agreed the most with Rob Bell, in that he explained how many people today are already living in hell. Just as I spoke last time about the suffering in this world, there are many people who are held captive by their own depression, and insecurities. People who are heartbroken and lonely, not to mention hopeless. The Bible speaks of how God gives us great joy, peace, and hope. Jesus and John the Baptist both mentioned how the kingdom of God was at hand, and I believe that by us fulfilling our purpose here on the earth, and entering into God's presence through our worship and times of reflection, that we actually experience this kingdom firsthand. I don't know what happens when we die, and surely there are a lot of ideas of what happens whether we immediately go to our destination, or our bodies lie dormant waiting for Christ's return in which the dead in Christ would rise up. I have heard fabulous stories of people who went to the other side and what they saw, and I have also realized that scripture tends to treat death as if we're going into an unconscious slumber. Consider how many times Jesus and Paul referred to death as “sleeping”, and the very fact that he wrote in Romans 6:23 that “the gift of God is eternal life” might lead us to believe that even now our souls, which is our consciousness, will die along with our bodies until Christ Himself raises us up. My point is that I don't know too much about the afterlife, and therefore I don't dwell too much on that which I don't know.

If for a moment we suppose that hell really is a holding chamber for the damned who never professed Christ as their Lord and Savior, we must also recognize that it is in no way eternal regardless of how we interpret it today. In Revelations chapter 20, verse 13, John writes about the throne of God and how the “sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged according to their deeds”. After which death and Hades, all whose names were not found in the book of life, along with the Devil, the beast, and the false prophet, are thrown into the lake of fire which is the second death. The Bible clearly teaches that the wages of sin is death, and not eternal life. To say that God grants people eternal life so that they could suffer seems to be a contradiction.
I also must point out that there is one passage that might seem a little troubling to my take on these things, and that being Revelations 20:10 which says, “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” Out of all of the scriptures, this might be the hardest one to overlook, but even this is subject to error. First of all, being tormented day and night does not seem to apply to anyone else other than the Devil and cronies. Second of all, the book of revelations is extremely high in symbolism and we must be very careful not to take too many thinks too literally. The lake of fire represents the second death, and the fact that death itself and the grave are tossed in to be destroyed has strong implications of God's intentions of creating a world where there is no more death. Secondly, the words “forever and ever” literally means in Greek, “age to age”, which is not quite as clear as “forever and ever” in terms of actual meaning. It is also important to point out that the scriptures that follow in the next chapter are in relation to the “New Jerusalem”, and all the incredible joy that would follow, which makes one wonder if God would in fact keep a separate realm for all those souls who were rebellious so He could hold them against their will in a fiery torment without end. Perhaps He would, but this again is a hard concept to grasp in trying to determine whether or not God is a good God who acts in mercy, or if He is a mean, vengeful God who enjoys watching people suffer. Afterall, it was God who said through the prophet Ezekiel, in Ezekiel 18:23, “Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord God, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live”.

Are You Still With Me Atheists?

Here's the bottom line; I have a terrible hard time with the belief that God sends people to hell, and would never condemn anyone to hell myself. Now there is a lot I don't know, and perhaps I am wrong and I will have to make an account for this error, but I don't fear being wrong about hell, for I don't think salvation is tangent on whether or not I believe in it correctly. Someone once told me that it was dangerous to say such a thing and how people who are less versed than I am in scripture might be easily swayed, to which I replied that fear of hell is no means of salvation, and if we are Christian because we fear hell or desire heaven, then we have missed the point entirely of what the gospel message is.

I believe in consequences for the way we live, and I believe as evidenced in scripture that the chosen, the disciples, the teachers, preachers, and representatives of the faith are held to a higher account for our actions than those who don't belong. I remain a Christian today because I discovered our current understanding of hell to be incredibly inaccurate, and that I would have a seriously hard time thinking the gospel to mean good news when it means such bad news for so many other people.

I believe the judgment seat of God which is mentioned in revelations chapter 20 is the one last chance for people to accept the free gift of eternal life. I am not saying we should wait until then to live for God, mostly because it means you are likely going to be living in a figurative hell until then and not know the joy and peace that comes from knowing the Creator Himself, and also because I could be wrong, and if you are at this moment willing to consider that God is in fact real and that He does love you relentlessly, then to dismiss this and hope for a second chance in the afterlife is nonsense. There are some who have a great excuse as to why they didn't confess Jesus as Lord, and then there are some, who don't. All I hoped to accomplish in this essay was to explain how our current thinking of hell is not only illogical, but grossly misunderstood in light of what the Bible actually says about it. There are consequences for our actions, but I don't believe that God is interested in tormenting you for all of eternity over the bad choices you made during the 80 years of your life. The torment you receive is yours and yours alone to own based on a conscious choice you make, and God in His mercy is willing to either grant you eternal life, or let you go the path of destruction which ends in death.

Next
Christianity Doesn’t Add Up Historically, and The Story of Jesus is Borrowed From Other Mythologies

A Reply to Atheism part: 1

I have had many conversations in recent years with people who have left the Christian faith for one reason or another. Some of the reasons are understandable, and some are not, but for the most part I understand why this has been happening so frequently. As a Christian it might be easy for me to get discouraged or frustrated with these recent turn of events (even the fact that many of my friends, present company included, don't even attend Church regularly at the moment), and so for me I have dedicated a lot of time and quiet moments to thinking these things out and hearing their arguments against something that I hold so dear.

Ten years ago I might have had a different reaction to this, but I know the problems we Christians are facing in an ever increasingly anti-Christian world, and I understand how throughout history, ages of intellectualism (which is what many people believe they have entered into when discussing these things) tend to lead us away from conceptualizing God, and instead take comfort in our own enlightenment. With thoughts as long as cigarettes, we believe to understand that everything is as it is, and not as we wish it were. Hope is replaced by firm dedication to discovering truth, and we bow down at the alter of our own intellect and that of those whose intellects we follow in the footsteps of.

Having come to grips with where we are today in the new intellectual age, I have been considering taking a stab at making a coherent reply to all the atheists out there who have made it their mission in life to convince the rest of us to leave our superstitious, faulty religions behind and keep up with the times. Don't get me wrong, atheists still make up a single digit minority in the world today, but their voices are the ones being heard, and their own misgivings about religion (namely Christianity) have led way to a culture that is slowly devolving into a misinformed, and ignorant understanding of the gospel message and what makes the doctrine of Jesus so unique.

So in a blatant attempt at goodwill, I have decided to address some of the more convincing arguments put out their by atheists. Not all arguments are good, and not all reasons are worth mentioning, and this is not a comprehensive guide to the Christian faith. This is simply a reply. Some Christians may take issue with my interpretation and use of scripture, and most atheists may find my arguments lacking in what is necessary to defend the faith. All I am wanting to do is start the discussion, and see where it leads, for I too have had many problems with digesting some fundamental Christian beliefs, and while taking issue with this certainly could have led me to reject the faith, it instead led me to consider whether or not our current understandings might have been skewed, and what the gospel message actually is. In the words of some who are much cooler than I am, don't hate, participate.

I will be addressing these topics one by one as time allows, and will start with perhaps the most popular reason many leave the faith.

Reason #1
There's so much suffering in the world.
The argument goes like this: If God is so good, why does He allow so much pain and suffering? This question is perhaps more relevant than ever before as the present age has allowed us to keep tabs on what is going on around the world and not just in our own backyard. We see images of hunger ravaged nations, effects of diseases and war, and images of natural disasters that take thousands of lives and destroy them before our eyes.

When I was living in Tennessee, I remember one day when a powerful tornado came through and tore up about two miles of real estate. I could see the effects of the tornado from the interstate where it had barreled through the trees that had lined the freeway and into the fairly new sub-divisions that were built just past it. For me the devastation was evident, but it wasn't all that personal. For the man who lost his house, his business (he worked out of his garage) and his family, it was devastating. I often wonder how he could have moved past such a tragic moment and continue on when his entire life was ripped out of the ground and he lost his wife and infant child as his house came crumbling down around him. Certainly a good God wouldn't allow this to happen, right?

When we think about all the oppression that goes on around the world, the slavery, human trafficking, sexual abuse, verbal abuse, sicknesses, famines, diseases, and countless other things, it is easy to wonder whether or not there is a God, and if you are one who goes through it, to even grow bitter and angry toward God and religion that pretends to have the answers but lacks the empathy to really address the struggles with anything more than blind rhetoric.

For years the Church has responded to these questions with something along the lines of how we live in a fallen world, and people are evil. Christians quote scripture, and speak of God's goodness, meanwhile the unspeakable is happening right outside their doors. Sure, without Christian charities, much of the suffering would be worst as there are some great foundations out there. Ultimately however, life isn't fair, and to stand behind the notion that God is good even when all we see is bad, it not only seems disingenuous, but also completely incomprehensible.

Here's the thing that might surprise a lot of you; the Bible never says “everything happens for a reason”. Many people in our culture today try to cope with the bad by quoting this very popular phrase, but the Bible never says such a thing. What it does say is that “God can cause all things to work out for the good, for those who love Him” Romans 8:28. How this translates into all things happening for a reason is beyond me. Yes, reason can be found in all things (See C.S. Lewis' acclaimed and personal book 'A Grief Observed'), but to say all things happen for a reason is to say that God either causes all things to happen, or He at the very least allows all things to happen for a purpose. This ultimately puts the blame on God (whether good or bad, and the Bible never makes such a claim).

Secondly, we find it almost unfathomable that an omniscient, all knowing God would let his creation, a people He claims to love, go through so much pain. As an American, a lot of what goes on around the world is experienced second hand. We hear stories, see pictures, have conversations, and cry out that either God doesn't exist, or if He does, He must be a mean, antagonistic fellow bent on tormenting us. While these feelings are justifiable, they also seem oddly misplaced when considering how people in other countries, and all through history, seem to cope with these struggles.

In China today there is a resurgent underground movement of Christians where tens of millions of people are added each year in spite of the intense pressure put on these Churches and the people who choose to participate. They risk imprisonment, torture, and sometimes death, just for associating with these “home churches” instead of the government sponsored Church which preaches a government approved form of Christianity. North Korea continues to kill Christians and put their bodies on display as a warning to anyone who dares become one, yet they are adding people every day to their cause, even when they risk to lose so much. This is not to say that the thriving Church in Asia is proof of God, just that people who are suffering, and oppressed, don't usually turn toward atheism but rather toward God as they are clinging to hope and finding people who they could share community with in the midst of very trying times.

This is no different than how the early Church started, when Rome would arrest the followers of Jesus and put them in the arenas to get publicly mauled by wild animals. While Rome was still living comfortably, this new religion grew by leaps and bounds because people like Justin Martyr saw these Christian's willingly going to their deaths and wondered what it is they believed in and why they would risk everything for it. In fact much of the New Testament was written during this time of great persecution against the illegal Church and the followers who were risking everything to participate. I only bring this up because it happened during a period of enlightenment when many of it's followers were learned, well educated members of society. Naturally the Church was still largely made up of unlearned people which is why letter's being passed around had to be read out loud during the meetings as many of them couldn't read, but we find that the early political structure, and the debates between scholars in the orthodox Church and scholars of the more mystic variety were not based in ignorance or superstition, but rather in abstract thinking and interpretation of the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the early Church leaders.

Perhaps a better example would be to point out how full the Churches were following the tragic and horrific events of 9/11. Suddenly people were turning to God instead of their own intellect to try to gain perspective on what happened that September day. It is my opinion that religion has always been man's attempt at understanding that which makes no plausible sense. You can say that our enlightenment in modern science and a well educated mind could protect us from venturing off into superstitious quests for answers that don't exist, but know that it is still human nature to want to find a reason and hope in the midst of pain and suffering.

I don't believe all religions point to God, but I think religion is in itself an attempt at doing just that. You could look at all the religions around the world, from the tribal ancestor worship to the grand Catholic Church, and make a good point that all of these contradictory religions seem to prove in a round about way that there is no God, or you could look at this simply as man's attempt to understand something physically that they only know of internally. The knowledge of a spiritual existence transcends all cultures and heritage, and is evident in all religions. Some are based in ignorance such as Hinduism (which one might argue is a product of Greek or Roman mythology in that it includes all sorts of god's to understand that which is obviously not a deity at all), and some are based in humanism such as the theology of many eastern Buddhist based religions that believe we are all connected and the point of life is to be better for the sake of our next life. When we narrow it down, only three religions actually strive to know and please one God as the supreme being, and that being Judaism, and it's two by-products, Christianity and Islam.

I am not saying here that God allows all pain and suffering simply because it's the best way to get us to seek Him, nor am I saying that everything happens for a reason. As is the case with life, each circumstance is unique and should not be confused with the whole. There are certainly some things that God allows to happen, and yet sometimes, bad things just happen and no rhyme or reason can be found in it. In superstitious ignorance, we used to point to people who went through tragedy, or even nations who suffered famine and disease, as being under the judgment of God. Today, not only is that not a popular stance to take, we also know that it is not necessarily a biblical stance. Bad things happen, and when they do we must respond with empathy and compassion. Everyone from Christian, atheist, humanist, etc, all know the joy and reward that comes with helping those in need. For whatever reason, morality and generosity still trumps selfishness, and whether you give to please God, or you give because it makes you feel better, the point is that it is human nature to respond, unless governed by religion that tells us they are getting what they deserve.
 
Perhaps the greatest reason to believe in God in the midst of terribly dark times is the evidence that good still exists. That while things seem dark and hopeless, there is still a moral code that makes the injustice bad, and the love good. That we speak of tolerance and acceptance as a social standard that should not exist if evolution and chance were the actual rulers of our destiny. The fact that there is still goodwill and charity, still love and sympathy, still patience and tolerance, all of these things point to something good even when the suffering is so great. Perhaps we have put too much responsibility on God and removed ourselves too far from the equation. Bad things do happen, but even Jesus told us to take care of the orphan and the widow and to love relentlessly.

It is said that there are enough resources on this planet to effectively rescue the hungry from the terrible grasps of famine, and many of our diseases can be cured by herbs and natural remedies that are banned from medical practice by institutions placing priorities on profit verses actual betterment. Bad things do happen, but I have a feeling they would be much less severe if man himself wasn't so inwardly focused and actually put his resources to good use. I believe the problem here is man, and not God, and since God does not appear to be a micro-manager, He has placed the responsibility on us to make good with the resources He has given.

The evidence of evil is not evidence that God doesn't exist. On the contrary, it is evidence that He does exist, for without knowledge of what is good (not just acceptable, but truly good), we would never actually know what to consider evil. Who's to say what is bad when there is no actual moral code to live by? The Ten Commandments didn't consist of new ideas for humans to follow, but rather the sensibility of that which has always been understood. Jesus cleared things up precisely when He explained that loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself sums up the entire purpose of the law. If you truly love one another you won't murder, you won't steal, you won't slander, and you won't covet. By simply acting in love, you ensure that you are doing your part to make this world a better, less hostile place.

Since I do not place blame on God for all the bad that happens, (nor on the devil or demons as well) but rather insist that some bad things just happen and there can be no real blame, just that such is life, then I have no problem with the idea of God allowing so much pain and suffering, because I understand that He has given us the resources to address these problems. Perhaps our frustration should be centered more at those who control the resources and do little with them, as opposed to a God who has already provided that which we need to ease the pain; that being the knowledge to see the pain and injustice, the resources to meet the needs, and the means to distribute it.

I don't pretend to believe that my thoughts here would persuade any atheist to reconsider their opinions or ideas, but I also think it to be quite a sound understanding of how one can fully believe in God with eyes open enough to see the pain and suffering around them. It is in no way a paradox to believe in a good God, and still acknowledge all the pain and suffering. When we take responsibility from God to solve all the worlds problems and put it on our own shoulders, it shows just how flawed mankind truly is, which is a central point of what the gospel message preaches. I don't buy the argument that a good God wouldn't allow pain and suffering, for these moments are chances for mankind to respond in a way that is good and meaningful, which gives us purpose. You could say that this is why all the bad things happen, but I simply think this is only fitting with the knowledge of God causing all things to work out for the good in the end.

By the way, the man in Tennessee who lost his wife and infant in the Tornado spent a few months dealing with depression, and trying to find reason in his suffering. Today he owns a roofing repair company and seems to be doing fine. It's amazing how resilient humans are when they are forced to endure such pain and suffering. Somehow he still found hope and the courage to move on, even when pain and sufferings was no longer just an abstract idea witnessed from the bleachers, but a real tangible experience that has forever shaped his life. It's human to have hope, and to trust that things will work out even when the darkness has settled in.
Next up:
A Good God Wouldn't Send People to Hell