The 2007 debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alistair McGrath had, as most well structured debates do, a few smart questions. I cannot and will never be able to do better than the great late Hitch, but there was a question which sparked my thoughts while also not being full satisfied with Hitchens's response.
McGrath makes a point where the human sacrifice of Jesus as a means of absolving all of their sins, past, present, and future, is an invitation for us to accept. That is is not imposed upon us.
This here is the height of sophistry. It almost falls into the realm of Poe's Law. It is so extreme in its dogma that it would be impossible to tell if it is the unvarnished truth of a true believer or a complete satire. Not imposed upon us? That's rich. These are words which can only be spoken by a man who will lie about knowing what god thinks and then humble himself by saying, "We're all only interpreters."
The Christian reasons is as follows: Jesus died for your sins. These are sins which you were born with. You have no say in the matter of whether or not you have sin. It has already been decided that you have and there's no protesting it. Lucky for you, God has given you the free will to choose: support his sacrificed son and be washed clean of your sins or reject the heavenly and divine offer and suffer an eternity of torment. Again, you cannot argue with the sins you were born with. You have them and now you must choose: the light or hell?
It is a sickening game to play with the weak minded adults in our communities. The low standing of any human who plays this game with children, though, is something almost incomprehensible. Of course, we can now comprehend this, as we have seen priests who preach this fear while also sexually abusing children. That's right, as these men know of their sin and have accepted Jesus, purifying them of all their wrong actions.
Freedom of choice is something that can only exist when there is no act of coercion taking place. Philosophers have recognized this for centuries. To have an expression of free will, we must have no burdens on our choices beyond our own assessments of the outcomes. There is no free will when you threaten violence! "It puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again." It's not a free choice to put the lotion into the basket as the consequence for not doing so is influencing the decision. The same applies to the question of free will to accept or reject Jesus as a savior. The threat of eternal, everlasting anguish is a coercive measure to ensure people will comply. But not only comply, but follow with the intent on getting others around them to do it too. Why? It's fine if you avoid the punishment, but do you want to see your spouse? Your parents? Your children? Absolutely not.
After all, you cannot argue about your original sin. You cannot avoid it. You can only deal with it by accepting a human sacrifice or suffering forever. It may not be imposed on us, but it surely does have the odds stacked in one direction. Mind you, most of this was not an issue until Jesus came along. Before Jesus, when you sinned, God was quick to punish you in the only life you had. It took Jesus to bring about the afterlife and the threat of a "second death". It wasn't until Jesus that we had everlasting Hell to send those who disagreed with the many contradictory statements made. Even with Jesus, where you can be forgiven of all your sins and errors and mistakes, there was still one thing you could never be forgiven for: unbelief. If you rejected the whole lot you were again sentenced to an afterlife of mutilation and pain. What kind of just being would impose that on its creation?
Sorry, was that "impose"? I mean, force its creation to choose. No, I will not have it for myself. I reject the very premise that comes from. I am not born into sin because of the acts of some long past man or woman. I do not even inherit the sins of my parents. No one does and we would do better to remember that when filthy faith comes knocking.
This is a weak game which is rigged from the start; failure to adhere to the rules is not a no-contest, but an automatic loss. Call it out for what it is: another tactic used to trick and trap the credulous into a system of belief that will never fully satisfy them. That is, not unless everyone else also believes it.
This has been a unedited rant. @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment