Sunday 4 December 2011

"Remember that hell will forever be a monument to human dignity and the value of human choice."

Objection Six: A Loving God Would Never Torture People in Hell, JP Moreland, PhD

CS Lewis Quotes: 2
Mentions Of Former Atheists: None that I spotted
How Do I Know JP Moreland Is Like Me? 'dressed casually in a short-sleeve shirt, shorts, and deck shoes without socks' (Moreland is 'dressed casually', to prevent confusion with Geisler, who as we saw was 'casually dressed').  'Watched his beloved Kansas City Chiefs.' 
How Foreceful Is Strobel In Presenting The Questions? Very. 'I decided my best tactic would be to confront Moreland head-on with Templeton's objections - emotion and all [...] I spit [sic] out Templeton's last words with the same tone of disgust he had used in talking to me [...] The challenge seemed almost to reverberate in his living room.  Tension quickly mounted.  Then, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive, I capped the question by demanding [...] So much for his idea of getting beyond feelings [...] my eyebrows shot up [...] "My goal isnt to get into an argument with you.  I just want you to spell out your perspective, and then at the end I'll weigh whether I think you're giving adequate responses and if, in total, the doctrine of hell stands up to scrutiny."

It is currently fashionable among apologists to deny that Hell is actually a bad place at all (along with the idea that God's purpose is not to be Good, it's just to get lots of people into Heaven).  Moreland takes this as one of his two central themes.  So we are told as a 'fact' that 'God [...] hates hell and he hates people going there'. 

(It always slightly puzzles me how theologians can be so certain about life after death.  Moreland, for instance, confidently declaims that there will be physical bodies in Hell, and there will be punishment - but no physical punishment.  How does he know this?  'Hell is described as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames, too.'  Therefore the flames are figurative.  Not the darkness, of course, or the idea of hell.  Nor has God created special invisible flames for the purpose (see how modern science backs up Hebrew knowledge!).  And it's not just the flames that are metaphorical - flesh-eating worms and 'gnashing of teeth' are also metaphors.  Yet despite all this, hell is still 'the worst possible situation that could even happen to a person.'  So presumably hell would actually be nicer with flames and flesh-eating worms, but God does not feel like mercifully doling out these boons?  Or perhaps Moreland is tying himself in knots trying to reconcile his personal liberal views with the vicious prose of the Bible?) 

The way that Moreland describes the afterlife, Heaven is for groupies and toadies - he almost makes Hell sound tempting - a sort of flotation tank for the soul.     

Another theme that is becoming apparent in these interviews is how alarmingly keen fundagelicals are to parade their scientific illiteracy.  Without Strobel even mentioning evolution, Moreland blurts out that 'We are not modified monkeys'.  He later informs us that he thinks 'near-death experiences have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that when people die they're still able to be conscious.'  He confidently proclaims that 'soulish potentials are contained in the parents' egg and sperm' (apparently this belief is even dignified with a name, traducianism).  But there is no good evidence for reincarnation.  Does Moreland have some modicum of common sense?  No, sadly not: 'There could be demonic explanations' for apparent evidence of reincarnation. 

So now Strobel moves on to what he sees as the main objections to the idea of Hell (and to be fair, for once I think he about covers it).

How Can God Send Children to Hell?
What else can Moreland say?  Of course his fluffy God would never send children to Hell.  He has Biblical examples of children going to Heaven, so therefore no children ever go to Hell. 
Of course, there is a teensy problem with this.  If children can get to Heaven without accepting Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour... why aren't adults given the same loophole?  If the only way to Heaven is not through Jesus, are there any other loopholes to be taken advantage of?  It is for reasons like this that the church has taught for the last 1900-ish years that children do burn in Hell (the Catholics found a way round it, of course), so Moreland is asking us to take his own personal opinion over common sense, the Bible and church tradition. 

Why Does Everyone Suffer the Same in Hell? 
Moreland denies this is true by quoting one of Jesus' rants where he declares some cities are more sinful than others (because they didn't convert when he visited them), saying 'it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgement than for you'.  Having seen that hell is metaphorical, here we have to take what seems to be hyperbole totally literally.  And apparently 'the worst possible situation that could ever happen to a person' varies from person to person. 

Why Are People Punished Infinitely for Finite Crimes? 
Moreland's first point here is that the time spent committing a crime is not proportional to the time spent being punished for it - which is true enough.  But then he goes on to claim:

'What is the most heinous thing a person can do in this life?  Most people, because they don't think much about God, will say it's harming animals or destroying the environment or hurting another person.  And, no question, all of those are horrible.  But they pale in light of the worst thing a person can do, which is to mock and dishonour and refuse to love the person that we owe absolutely everything to, which is our Creator, God himself [...] that's the ultimate sin.  And the only punishment worthy of that is the ultimate punishment, which is everlasting separation from God.' 


(Emphasis in original.)  So anyone who's not a Christian is 'ignoring' and 'mocking' God (even if they are devoutly religious). 

Couldn't God Force Everyone to Go to Heaven? 
Moreland starts out by claiming that this would be 'forcing people to do something against their will', and it would be 'divine rape' to send them to Heaven.  Yes, really, 'divine rape'.  But this pseudo-liberal argument is clearly bunk.  If people are making an uninformed decision (such as because they incorrectly think that the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever for Moreland's version of God gives them good reason to think that such a God does not exist, and they should just try to lead a morally good life), it could hardly be described as a 'free will decision' to go to hell, could it?  If I personally thought that Hell existed (outside the minds of particularly unpleasant religious extremists), I would go to almost any lengths to avoid it.  There is no way I would ever step on the cracks if I thought the bears really were going to get me. 

Besides, if it is 'divine rape' to send someone kicking and screaming to Heaven - what does that say about sending people to Hell? 

Why Doesn't God Just Snuff People Out? 
Here's where it gets just plain weird. 

'The only way that would be a good thing would be the end result [...] then you're treating people as a means to an end.'  I can only suspect that Moreland doesn't know what the phrase 'means to an end'... erm, means.  God would be 'snuffing people out' for their own good, not His.  The 'snuffing' would be the means, the good of the people would be the end (in both senses).  He could at least offer them the option, if he's so concerned about free will - a sort of post-mortem euthanasia.  But this is not enough for Moreland:

'What hell does is recognise that people have intrinsic value' 

Yes, we can see that God values people because he puts them in 'the worst possible situation that could even happen to a person'.  Why he can't value them by trying to ameliorate that situation?  Moreland offers us no clues.  Instead he gives us a lot of dubious Biblical exegesis against the theological position of 'Annihilationism'. 

How Can Hell Exist Alongside of Heaven? 
A better question would be how Heaven can exist alongside Hell - how can anyone be truly happy knowing that their loved ones are in 'the worst possible situation that could ever happen to a person'

Apparently, people in Heaven will be too 'mature' to be troubled by such a thing. 

Why Didn't God Create Only Those He Knew Would Follow Him? 
Another good question.  By now, Moreland is simply throwing answers out in the hope that one sticks in the mind of Strobel's reader.  It's too difficult for God, who despite being 'real, real smart', cannot tell how we will interact with each other.  And also, God's plan is a mystery.

Why Doesn't God Give People a Second Chance? 
More rapid-fire randomness in the hopes of a lucky hit.

God has already done everything He can (except, y'know, reveal himself).  People wouldn't change their minds even if they had more time.  If God gave people too much information it wouldn't be a free choice: 'if people saw the judgement seat of God after death, it would be so coercive that they would no longer have the power of free choice.' 

I also have to mention this little beaut:

'you've got to realise that the longer people are separated from God, the less likely they are to exercise their free choice and trust him.  This is why most people who come to Christ do so when they're young.'

Nothing about religious indoctrination of children in education, upbringing by parents, or increasing understanding with age - no, children just have more free will! 

Isn't Reincarnation More Rational Than Hell? 
When it comes to reincarnation, Moreland suddenly comes over all verificationist:
'I don't know any other way to decide whether something's true except by looking at the evidence [...] there could be demonic explanations for some of this activity.'
and yet:

'God [is] hiding His presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore Him can do it'

So we should look at the evidence to conclude that reincarnation is not real, but where there is no evidence for God, we should not take that as reason to think He is not real.  Got it?  'as we develop our relationship with him, we'll even come to trust him in those areas where right now we lack complete understanding.'

Then Moreland argues that reincarnation cannot be true because the 'essence' of a person is that they're human, and that essence could never be transferred to a dog or a rock (he doesn't consider any form of human-only reincarnation).  But of course, as a Christian he's supposed to believe that the 'essence' of a person is their soul... oh dear, more thought needed here, I fear. 

Finally, he falls back on quoting the Bible: Jesus was virtuous, Jesus believed in Hell, therefore the idea of Hell is virtuous.  Hmm.

No comments:

Post a Comment