[+/-] Hell and Justice

I've been rethinking hell. It's been along time since I took seriously the idea that humanity deserves eternal suffering. But I decided I should try to make a cool-headed assessment of the various possibilities. I’ve approached this by considering what might constitute a just cause for damnation.

1. Anything at all, or even nothing
This is the view that God needs no reason for causing his creatures infinite suffering. Rather than God being just because He acts justly, His actions are just because they're performed by God. God alone makes the rules; there are no transcendent moral laws by which He abides. The interesting and troubling implication of this view is that there is nothing inherently wrong about any action, however horrific it may seem to us. So the only reason why rape is wrong is that God says "Don't rape people". If God didn't command us not to rape, there would be nothing wrong with rape.

So is justice a transcendent law, or merely a part of creation? I suspect that most of us can imagine something an almighty God would be capable of doing which would be wrong. (He may in fact be prevented from doing it by His inherently just nature, but that's another issue.) I think causing immeasurable suffering to a helpless and undeserving creature is an example of something that would be unjust even for God. Consequently, if we are to believe in damnation, we must believe that it is something we deserve.

But you could take the opposite position - that anything God could possibly do or command would be just. My problem with this, besides the effect it has on my stomach, is that this makes justice kind of an empty concept. How can we make sense of saying "God is just" if "just" simply means "what God is"? If all God’s qualities are understood this way, it’s difficult to understand why He’s worthy of worship or obedience or love.

2. Someone else's sin
So if I've established that God is in some way constrained to act justly, the next question is whether (or to what extent) I understand what justice is. Is it possible that my own intuitions about justice could be wildly mistaken, and that justice permits - or even requires - one person to be punished for the sins of another? I'm don't think I could imagine anything that seems more fundamentally unjust, but it appears that at least some biblical authors disagree. Could it be that every one of us is guilty and deserving of damnation because of our ancestors' sins? That even infants who do not have free will and thus have never sinned are nonetheless under the righteous wrath of God? I have a hard time believing that my moral intuitions - intuitions which I'm told are given to me by God, those same gut feelings that tells me rape and murder are wrong - are so drastically mistaken on this point. The idea that we are justly found guilty of crimes we have not committed is beyond my imagination.

If this is justice, am I meant to comprehend it? Might I some day understand rationally that children are guilty of their parents' sins, and that every one of us really deserves to burn for Adam's disobedience? Or is it something that I must take on faith? If I were to try to believe that what seems to me the most grievous of all possible injustices is, in some unfathomable way, completely just, I would have to have to have enormous confidence in the source of this doctrine, and in my correct understanding of it. I'm a long way away.

3. One's own sin
If we accept that God acts justly, and that our understanding of justice is not wholly mistaken, we can move on to the question of eternal punishment. I fully understand that I am an imperfect creature, both by nature (which is not my doing, and for which I am not deserving of punishment) and continual choice (for which I do deserve punishment). I recognize that I do not deserve to stand before a holy God because of my willful unholiness. But do I deserve infinite punishment for my finite sin? If I've decided to believe that there is such a thing as justice apart from the will or whims of God, and that it is at least somewhat comprehensible to me, can I make sense of the idea that unending torment is a fitting punishment for finite sins?

The first thing we have to get out of the way is the idea that some people deserve eternal torment and others don't. If there were any relationship between the degree of sin and the degree of punishment, no one could possibly deserve infinite punishment. As creatures with finite wills and powers, living finite lives in finite worlds, we cannot do infinite evil. So either Hitler does not deserve eternal suffering, or you and I and Mother Teresa all deserve it as well. If we believe in eternal punishment we must sever the intuitive link between the severity of a crime and the severity of its punishment.

Which is a hell of a task. Even ignoring the mind-boggling prospect of infinite suffering, can we accept that all crimes are deserving of equal punishment? Can we accept that a lie is precisely as damning as an act of genocide? I can't see how.

Once again, we cannot say that we're so evil we deserve eternal punishment. Either we deserve it because we are less than absolutely perfect, or we do not deserve it. Is eternal torment just punishment for the smallest imaginable sin? Again, I can't see how.


My conclusion at this point is I don’t believe a just God would punish anyone with eternal suffering. This is not the same as believing there is no hell. I've by no means considered all possibilities here, but it's a start. I may consider other options in a subsequent post. Anyway, let me know if you disagree on any point.

[+/-] Church Hopping

I'm still here. I'm just kind of busy. I have a big messy post in the works and I'm having a hard time finding the time and energy to finish it. Also, I haven't got around to looking into the non-Christian YECs a recent commenter suggested. I'll let you know what I think when I get to them, either in the comments or a new post.

Just thought I'd let you all know about one of my projects for the immediate future. I've decided to stop going to my regular church, at least for a while, and check out a wide variety of other local churches. My main goal is to get a taste of many different ways of doing church (sort of a Generous Orthodoxy thing) and develop a basic familiarity with different denominations. And if I find a church where I feel like I fit in really well, that would be cool too.

I went to St Joseph's Basilica this week. I don't think I'm really a high church guy, but it's nice for a change. It's weird to think about how much money a building like that costs. I don't know whether an expense like that can be justified, even though it's really pretty. I have a hard time imagining Jesus of Nazareth approving of a building like that. On the other hand, he approved of spending a year's wages on perfume for his feet, and God himself ordered the construction of Solomon's temple. I don't know. Anyway, if anyone knows of an interesting, unique or awesome church in the Edmonton area, I'm open to suggestions.

Since I'm doing personal updates, my Bible-writing project has stalled. I've made it to about Matthew 15, but I haven't picked it up in a while. I still intend to.

[+/-] The Problem With YEC

I try to stay away from debates about the age of the earth or the methods by which God created life. For one thing I haven't done nearly enough research to have an educated opinion on the matter (although that doesn't stop a lot of people). For another, I don't particularly care.

I do recognize that for many people this is a serious issue. If the first two chapters of Genesis are not literal, historical truth, doubt is cast on the literal, historical truth of all other Bible stories. This is a valid concern, and I do care about how people interpret scripture, but I'd rather talk about that directly than get bogged down in some endless and tangential discussion of flood geology.

I'm not sure if anything could persuade me to take a real interest in Young Earth Creationism (YEC), but I would like to know whether I should regard it as anything more than fundamentalist dogma. I'm quite willing to give the theory any respect it may be due.

There are a couple of concerns that prevent me from taking YEC seriously. One is that I've observed what seems to be a widespread misunderstanding among it's proponents of words like "bias" and "presupposition", about which I have some knowledge, if not expertise. Having encountered what I believe to be incompetence among leading YECists in an area I know, I have difficulty giving them the benefit of the doubt in areas I do not. (I could say more about this, if you wish, but I won't go into it here and now.)

The second thing that prevents me from taking YEC seriously is that, as far as I know, conservative Christians are the only ones who believe any of it.

I stress the "as far as I know". I haven't actually searched for expert, non-Christian evolution or old earth skeptics. I sort of assume that if there were such people they would have been brought to my attention, but it's quite possible (what with me not really caring) that I may have missed them.

So how about it, YECs? Can anyone find a single person who fits the following description?

1. Is a recognized expert in a relevant field (eg. geology). Meaning he or she has a PhD in that field from a respected secular university, and is or was, if not at the top of his/her field, at least well respected by his/her peers.
2. Was not a YEC from the start. Meaning s/he was not raised as a conservative Christian and, without having examined it in detail, had always considered YEC to be mere religious dogma masquerading as science.
3. Now agrees with YEC about what the physical evidence indicates. Meaning that in the course of his/her research, this expert became convinced that the weight of evidence is against some well accepted cornerstone of atheistic evolution and now holds a position very like that of YECs. (Such as that there is strong evidence in the fossil record of a recent, global flood.)
4. Came to this belief on the basis of the physical evidence alone. Meaning that s/he did not convert to conservative Christianity and then change his/her mind about the evidence, but changed his/her mind before and independent of any religious conversion. It would be best if the expert was not a Christian at all.

If the YECists cannot produce such a person (and I don't know if they can or not, which is why I ask) I see no reason to take their position seriously.