Tag Archives: Religious Pluralism

Polemics

Should you reject the Biblical view of Hell based on emotions?

16 Comments

I noticed this post up at Dr. Glenn Peoples’ blog.

In the post, he quotes a number of prominent Christian theologians who affirm a belief in Hell, such as Tertullian, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and Isaac Watts. He chooses these people to quote because they seem to argue that the bliss of those who enter Heaven will be enhanced by seeing the suffering of those who are in Hell. I’m not going to cite the lurid passages he does, but I did want to cite his conclusion for you to comment on.

He writes:

But modern believers in eternal torment wouldn’t endorse this, would they? Would they actually endorse a theology of hell in which we sit and watch millions of people, including our lost children and friends, actually being tortured in fire – and would they agree that we will gain happiness and pleasure from the sight?

Glenn holds to the view of annihilationism, such that the damned are annihiliated after being punished.

Now let me just state right off that I have no knowledge of whether I am going to be happy seeing the damned in Hell, that’s not in the Bible, and I have no idea what Heaven will be like.

Now let me briefly provide one or two reasons why I believe in Hell, BASED ON MY EXPERIENCES with non-Christians.

  1. Jesus talks about Hell in the Bible as a real place
  2. Jesus taught that the greatest commandment is to love God
  3. No one desires God and no one wants to be bound by a love relationship with God
  4. Each person is responsible for accepting or rejecting God
  5. People who rebel against God hold to a worldview that is irrational and unsupported by evidence
  6. I have more sympathy for God than I do for people who reject him

My view of Hell is based on my preference for the plain meaning of the Bible over my emotional desires, and my experiences dealing directly with non-Christians during evangelism. I think that annihilationists are just not willing to sit down with non-Christians and ask them why they are not ready to become a Christian. When I do that, I find that non-Christians 1) reject the moral demands of Christianity, 2) justify that selfishness by believing in speculations that make Christianity seem false, and 3) refuse to test those speculations logically or empirically.

Let me give you just one example from my undergraduate tour in university. I met a Mormon friend whom I had known in high school who just returned from his missionary service. By that time, I had discovered apologetics in earnest, so I asked him a question: how do Mormons reconcile their belief in an eternal universe with the evidence for a creation out of nothing?

He replied “we don’t determine our beliefs based on science”.

And I said, “that’s fine. Let me know if you ever get curious about what science says about God, and we can certainly talk about it”.

I keep non-Christians as friends as long as I am able to be myself, and talk about what I believe occasionally. (Although I oppose pursuing amusement and pleasure for its own sake).

Once you have enough encounters like this with atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. you begin to realize that no one wants to talk about whether God exists and what he is really like. No one is looking for an answer to their speculations against Christianity, e.g. – “who made God?”. They just want to get their degrees, get good-paying jobs, and be left alone to pursue pleasure. Some do turn to non-Christian religions and fads of their own choosing, but those are embraced as a means to increased happiness.

My non-Christian male friends are happy to spend their entire lives climbing corporate ladders, chasing women, following sports, drinking, buying geeky junk, and playing video games, etc., rather than setting aside a measly 90 minutes to watch a debate on whether God exists. I actually did a survey of non-Christians a while back, and you can read about their worldviews. Notice how there is no search for truth there. Just a desire for autonomy from any authority that might block their hedonism. It’s really quite in-your-face!

Implicit in any rejection of God is the rejection of Christ’s sacrifice of his own life in place of the life of each sinner. You don’t just walk away from a sacrifice like that. I understand that people have questions about the fairness of the requirement to explicitly confess faith in Christ in order to be reconciled with God, or the problems of evil and suffering, or religious pluralism. But we have answers to those questions. The problem is that non-Christians are not sincere in their desire to find those answers.

What do you expect God to do with such people? This is GOD we are talking about here, people. Not Santa Claus! When I hear people talking about annihilationism, it really makes me wonder whether they read the Bible at all (e.g. – Romans 1), and then bothered themselves to actually test and see if the Bible is correct about its diagnosis of human nature as inherently sinful. In my opinion, what is happening here is that Christians who reject Hell prefer their own emotional desires for the plain meaning of the Bible.

Everyone has to choose whether they sympathize with God or with people who rebel against God. And don’t dismiss me as a meany. My non-Christians friends are the only ones who know whether I treat them well. They are the ones who will have to judge for themselves whether I show love for them by what I do, regardless of my view of Hell. I trust that anyone who knows me personally will accept my apologies to them for expressing my views so harshly, but I think the Bible is clear on this.

UPDATE: Glenn has written to me to assure me that he is not taking his position for any other reason than because he thinks the Bible teaches annihilationism. So, I thought I had better add that here so no one would think ill of him. He has other material on his blog where he makes the Biblical case that I had not looked at.

Related posts

Mentoring

Brit Hume is interviewed about his public witness for Christianity

6 Comments

Here’s the interview from Christianity Today. (H/T Muddling Towards Maturity)

Excerpt:

Do you think your experience becoming a Christian after your son’s death has led you to be emboldened to talk about your faith publicly?

I ought to be willing to do that. I don’t want to practice a faith that I’m afraid to proclaim. I don’t want to be a closet Christian. I’m not going to stand on the street with a megaphone. My principal responsibility at Fox News isn’t to proselytize. But occasionally a mention of faith seems to me to be appropriate. When those occasions come, I’ll do it.

And:

What were you hoping people would take away from what you said?

Well, I was kind of hoping that in some way word of it might reach Tiger. I was hoping that people who were of faith might receive some encouragement from the message. You never know. I also thought it was interesting. I didn’t really sit down and make some kind of calculations on a sheet of lined paper about what were going to be the consequences. We were expressing our views and those were my views on that point.

Now watch this video of Brit Hume explaining why he did it, on the O’Reilly Factor.

My thoughts

First, I am appalled by the reactions of the hard secular left,. They seem to think that it is a horrible crime to recognize one religion over another. Obviously these people are thinking that religion is like a cultural thing you inherit, or a personal preference. I really have trouble understanding how people could be so stupid as to not realize that religions make conflicting claims about an objective reality – claims that can be tested using history, science, the laws of logic, etc.

Second, I think that we Christians need to seriously consider whether we can try to be more like Brit Hume in the places we are. Let me explain.

First, consider this passage, which is, I think, the scariest verse in the New Testament, and has caused me to act bravely more than any other verse, because I just cannot stand being a coward when someone has put their trust in me, in the context of a relationship.

Matthew 10:32-33:

32“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven.

33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

And here’s a less scary one, that I also like a lot:

1 Corinthians 4:1-4:

1So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God.

2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.

3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.

4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.

Now there are two kinds of people in the world. The kind of people that don’t mind obligations that are placed on them by someone who loves them, and the kind of people who do mind. And Brit Hume is the first kind – he has the desire to be faithful in his obligation to tell the truth about Christianity in public, regardless of the flak he catches from the secular left. It reminds me of the motto of the Order of the Garter: “Honi Soit qui Mal y Pense” – “Shame on him who thinks ill of it.” Shame on him who thinks ill of it. Shame on the people who defend Roman Polanski but denigrate Brit Hume.

By the way, I also think that we Christians should be striving for excellence so that when we do witness, a lot of people who are already impressed by our credentials will give our message the respect it deserves! So work hard in school and at work! And encourage other Christians to do well in school and at work, too. We need to be thinking about the most effective ways to have an influence. And I think that studying apologetics helps us to believe the things we say we believe, and to explain those things intelligently and confidently to others.

My favorite lecture

Now may be a good time to point you all to the lecture that changed my life: Dr. Walter Bradley’s “Giants in the Land”. You can listen to THREE VERSIONS of it. It will probably make you cry, or at least you will get a lump in your throat.

Dr. Walter L. Bradley

  • Ph.D. in Materials Science, University of Texas at Austin, 1968
  • B.S. in Engineering Science, University of Texas at Austin, 1965

My favorite lecture of all time:

And variations of his “Giants in the Land” lecture that I like:

Other lectures:

I hope these lectures encourage you to be a bit more brave on behalf of our mutual friend!

News

What do left-wing Democrats think about Christianity?

5 Comments

Did you see this video of Fox News anchor Brit Hume recommending that Tiger Woods consider whether Christianity has more to offer someone who needs forgiveness than Budhhism? (H/T Neil Simpson)

Brit Hume is my favorite news media person. Actually he’s the only news anchor I watch when I’m traveling. (I don’t have a TV in my apartment)

The left-wing media responds

Here’s a story from NewsBusters describing how the secular leftists on MSNBC responded to Brit’s words.

Excerpt:

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann slammed FNC’s Brit Hume for advising Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity while appearing on yesterday’s Fox News Sunday panel, where Hume has regularly appeared for years and contributed his opinions to the discussion in a way that differs from his manner of moderating discussions in a more neutral way when he used to host Special Report with Brit Hume. Although Olbermann later backed away from likening Hume to radical Muslims, during the show’s opening teaser, Olbermann did make such a comparison: “An organization proselytizing, trying to force others to convert to its faith alone, you know, just like Islamic extremists.”

At one point as the Countdown host plugged a segment in which he discussed Hume with author Dan Savage, the words “Hume’s Holy War” were shown at the bottom of the screen as Olbermann spoke: “So Brit Hume tells Tiger Woods he can be forgiven, but only if he converts to Christianity. Fox has given up all pretense, hasn’t it?”

As Olbermann and Savage went on to make fun of Christianity, the MSNBC host at one point quipped: “‘WWJDIHS,’ which is: What would Jesus do if he strayed?” Savage brought up fringe religious figure Fred Phelps, who has become infamous for holding protests at the funerals of American soldiers, and lumped him in with Hume, Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer.

Click through for a partial transcript. This is really revolting stuff, and it shows what Democrats like Olbermann think of Christianity and authentic Christians.

Neil Simpson also noticed that secular leftists were not too thrilled about Brit Hume’s authentic Christian activity in the public square.

Drew also has a post defending Brit Hume on the Drew Blog.