Protestantism

“Objections to Christianity – Part 3 – The Cross and Empty Tomb – An Imaginary Solution to an Imaginary Problem”(Revised August 2019) – Odin’s Eye

/ Ed Raby Sr / 2 Comments

 

Happy Thor’s Day

August 2019 Revision Notes:

It has been almost a year since I wrote these originally starting in November of 2018.  When I got to the rotation in Odin’s Eye the last time where I was going to deal with these objections again, I saw no need for revision but rather simply laid it out there that no one had responded to them to that date and moved on into the rest of the Rotation for Odin’s Eye. 

This time though I feel that I need to spend four weeks of Odin’s Eye doing some revisions that will either clarify my position, add some other thoughts or edit for other issues.  Such edits will be marked by italics.  When archived, they will appear under the original post on this Page: My Four Theological Objections to Christianity

 Mostly though this is a cut and paste with some revisions. As the series goes on there will be more revisions as I can see the need for things to change a bit in the other three objections. In part three, I felt the need to add a few paragraphs for hopefully a clearer explanation. 

Introduction:

I know I will probably get a reaction out of this one and I am not trying to be provocative.  I am simply trying to get people to see the logical problems of Salvation through Christ.  Once you dismiss sin as a made-up concept, you could say that it is really unnecessary to go after ‘God’s’ solution to the problem, but the whole of Christianity revolves around Christ’s work on the cross and the resurrection to save people from sin and from eternal damnation. You might say it is the core doctrine no matter what flavor of Christianity you live by so it deserves some attention.

For the sake of argument, let’s concede sin is real. Then does the solution the Bible presents God has for it make any sense? 

Faith:

Of course, the first thing that can be said is each flavor of Christianity stakes out is how said salvation is achieved with Christ.  The faith versus works controversy starts right away in the first century. James and Paul go at it right in the Bible.  Now I heard multiple explanations from both Protestants and Catholics of why James and Paul are not arguing about the same thing really but they practically quote each other with only one variation.  One says salvation in Christ cannot be of works so no one can boast, and the other one says that without works it is impossible to show faith. No matter how you logically try to get them to be ‘defending the same salvation only from different directions”; it is contradictory.  One is saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, and the other is saying it does.

So what this really shows is that even in the Bible and among early Christians, they had disputes and disagreements about how this works and thus it points to the Bible not being inspired by God, so much as it records those early debates among the faithful about how salvation worked.  That makes the Bible very human and also not the Word of God because if God had actually wanted to tell us how this works; because it seems it would be the most important thing for us to know, he would have made it plain, straightforward and quite frankly non-contradictory.

Religion:

Of course, every flavor of Christianity goes even further with specifics and added on things to the doctrine of salvation in Christ.  The Catholic Church plain out tells you that you can only be saved from death through them and no one else.  Many Protestant denominations will tell you the same.  My former denomination would tell people that they had the whole gospel, not just part of it.  Salvation is complicated by religion because religion seeks to use these ideas to keep people grateful and faithful for telling those people their version of ‘the truth’.

In the end, I would say that each variation of salvation through Christ is presented in a way that helps the group presenting it.  It is done to layout their other doctrinal tenants so their way of thinking about God is central to it all, and thus gives a theological force to everything they believe. Of course, this gives religion the guilt and punishment/reward options it needs to manipulate people. 

Theology:

Religion aside though, my objections are theological – what kind of God do we have, who claims to be merciful and loving, but demands for his followers to be forgiving without condition, but doesn’t do so himself?  It also brings up the question of the ability to forgive in that we are expected to forgive each other without condition because we can, even as sinners. Yet, a holy God can’t simply forgive without sacrificing his only begotten son in one of the cruelest ways ever devised by man.  He must have this sacrifice or he cannot forgive at all, and I must have faith in it and the resurrection or he will not forgive me specifically.  Worse yet if I don’t forgive others as a Christian, he won’t forgive me. He can choose to not forgive others and still be a holy God, but if I don’t forgive, I cannot be saved?  So I, as a ‘sinner’, have not only a greater expectation than my creator; but also I am more capable because I can do this forgiveness without conditions, but he cannot?

This bit of ‘logic’ pales in comparison to the fact that in order to forgive us he must sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself to save us from himself. See the problem? Well Ed, what if then the whole doctrine of salvation as it currently stands is man-made and that isn’t the real doctrine of salvation God wanted? How then would we ever know the real one? It seems a little too confusing for something so important as eternal life.  My response that the current one is man-made? – exactly, and that is probably true from the start of Christianity to where it actually stands today.   It seems to me that this idea is just as man-made because a supreme being could have come up with the simple plan to just forgive people. As Jesus is praying in the garden “if it is possible, let this cup pass from me” we would see the opening up the heavens and God saying -“You know what, I have a better plan – let’s just forgive people like I expect them to forgive each other.” That would be just, logical and consistent.

There is also another theological side issue – How much of a sacrifice is it really for Jesus if he knows for certain (which he indicates three times in the gospels) that he will rise from the dead?  Honestly, if he knew that and most people who have faith believe he did and the text certainly seems to indicate he did, then it isn’t that big of a sacrifice? He knows he is not going to ultimately be dead in the end; so why not do it, as there is no ultimate risk to him?  In the end, Jesus is risking nothing himself as God, just going through the inconvenience of temporal suffering.  Why? To make a point? What point would that be, when there is nothing actually sacrificed in the end? He lives and knows he is going to live so why the anguish?

Spirituality:

I guess this leaves me with the question from a spiritual point of view as to what salvation is? Or does it?  I mean, if there is no such thing as sin, there is no need to be saved from it. Of course, then I could be left with the question of what the real divine reality might expect from me?  I guess the only thing then is to live a good life regardless of what that divine reality might be. Marcus Aurelius rightly observes, in my opinion, this in his famous quote on the good life.

See the source image

Of course, you are kind of left to things yourself as to define what virtues you will live by to attain that good life. In short, what is defined as a good life is left to you.

Conclusion:

The implications of losing the whole notion of sin and a need for salvation have been very liberating. There is no guilt or shame in my heart or mind at all these days.  I do try every day to be a better man than I was the day before. This, I have found is a far better way to live. 

Better yet, is discarding the notion of a loving God who also sends people he loves to hell.  Because the god of the Bible seems to have some major issues with justice, but that is the subject of the next post.  

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Religion Problems: The Growing Unaffiliated ‘Religion’ in the USA

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

In the United States where I live, the number of religiously ‘unaffiliated’ is growing. What is shrinking is White Protestantism and Catholicism particularly with Generation X and the millennials.  Below is a good statistical graph of what is happening.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/245453/religious-affiliation-in-the-united-states-by-age/

In short, older people are clinging to what they know and were taught, but younger people saying ‘fuck that shit.” It also true that as people age death and what follows it becomes more of a thing to them.  But that does not account for the fact that a change is strongly evident. That Protestantism, particularly among whites but truly across the board, is shrinking in the United States and Catholicism as well.  What is happening?

There are a lot of things that one could say here, but for me, I understand one thing for certain – that information is far more available and then there is no way to prevent people from getting alternative opinions. If one has an internet connection, you can find alternatives opinions and arguments against any religion and faith with ease. The two generations that have enjoyed this state of affairs the most are the Millenials and Generation X.  Both of these groups have had the luxury of when any opinion is offered of being able to find a counter opinion in seconds and not just one counter opinion but many.

Of course, Christians fear what means. But in truth, this country was not founded as a Christian one but a secular one based on reason. It could be argued that we are simply returning to where we came from. I question whether this is a bad thing at all.  As we look through the eye today I can only tell my personal story of becoming one of the Unaffiliated. I don’t know if it is typical, but I think it might be the pattern for most.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

In the case of Christianity, faith rests on the story of Jesus Christ being true. Not just parts of it but all of it.  Without this, faith is simply not possible.  Paul’s argument in the 1 Corinthians 15 is true in that regard that without the historical resurrection, Christianity is founded on nothing. The problem is that the gospels are problematic as I pointed out in this post: Odin’s Eye – Bible Problems: The Four Gospels. Because of this, the real Jesus of Nazareth is obscured by disciples who created what amounts to a tall tale with no historical verification. In many cases, stories are told alone without even the other gospels to back them up. Once the truth of this was apparent to me, I realized my faith in Christianity was based in large part on nothing but unverified stories that were no better or worse than the stories of any other mythology.

Religion:

My religion was no help here in preserving my faith.  Nor was my experience or education in Christianity a bolster to my sagging faith.  In fact, my traditions repeatedly informed me it was dangerous to ask such questions.  My response was: ‘if my religion cannot handle questions and the god they proclaim cannot stand the scrutiny of logic, then both are weak and not worth serving’. Religion as a general rule doesn’t like questions and would rather have people blindly follow than analyze the doctrines and theology.  My problem was I have always been a rebel in that regard; and when it comes to theology, I am a guy with a degree in theology and that journey actually drove me to realize that all ideas about the divine are strictly opinion based on man’s thoughts about god.

Theology:

As a theologian, I thought a lot about God.  Mostly the problem was how to get the god of the Protestant Bible to make sense. The best I could do was to abandon the idea that god controlled everything; because if he did, then he was an evil fuck.  No matter how you shake and dance, the god of scripture seems very human. Being jealous and acting in ways that would make tyrants look benevolent. He creates man knowing he is going to suffer and do evil things and then yet punishes them for the way he created them. The god of the bible promotes a certain morality, commands it even, and then breaks it himself.  Over time, this and my other Four Major Objections to Christianity formed out of my theological struggles and I simply could not reconcile them.  In the end, I found myself a pastor without any faith.

Spirituality:

The hard cold truth is that our spirituality is chosen.  It cannot be imposed and the reason I was a Christian all those years was not that Christianity as faith, religion or theology could prove itself true.  It was because it was how I chose to engage the spiritual reality that I perceived around me.  Once this truth dawned on me, I left Christianity to follow a more spiritual path without religion imposing on me the thoughts of others. I find a lot more peace about it these days.

Conclusion:

I don’t know how typical I am here but I do know one thing.  All of this journey was possible because my access to information and counter-arguments was right at my fingertips. Books, articles and web pages in abundance offered up alternatives to the arguments Christians used to defend themselves and their beliefs and in the end, they prevailed to the point I could not accept Christianity anymore. I think this is basically what is happening in American as a whole.  It just took longer for me to join the religion known as “Unaffiliated” than others.  It is a new path for me, but one I new cheerfully embrace.  I consider it an honor to be a part of a time where religion is in retreat and perhaps there is a new chance for Reason to reign instead. Or at the very least where people can be Unaffiliated and free from religion’s control.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Humanism – Morality and Religion

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

Humanists as a general rule, dismiss the need for religion to be moral. Humanists for the most part simply see that anyone can act ethically and morality if they simply tap into their humanity. That is act on their better nature as human beings. I concur with this.

There is some thoughts that to be a humanist you have to be atheist, but I reject that as well. I think in large part those we call founding fathers were also humanists of a deist variety and I am as well.  I don’t dismiss the idea of creator or creators, I just don’t think that, whomever they may be, has any vested interest in policing our morals.  That’s up to us to define as the creators, if they exist, have left questions of morality and ethics to us.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

Faith never cured me of being a dick. Not once did my faith in Christ lead to a better morality.  That choice was always my own. I would say also that I have seen the concept of ‘faith’ used for great evil as old ladies send parts of their social security checks to preachers on television who promise prosperity through giving.  All the while the prosperity comes to them at the old ladies’ expense. Greed justified through ‘faith’ is an old story, and one of the great proofs that religion is no guarantee of morality. Far from it.  You can also add people wracked with guilt because they were sick and that was because they didn’t have enough ‘faith’.

Religion:

I have watched in my own ministry as religion has been used to justify unethical and immoral things:

  1. Because of the Christian notion of submission of wives to husbands, I saw sexual, physical, emotional and mental abuse perpetrated by men toward their wives.
  2. Because of the notion of ‘seed faith’ I saw greed justified as people would plant their seed but the preacher would harvest.
  3. I saw harsh religious judgment as people would literally throw off good friends and even family members simply because they did not believe as they did or left the faith. This one I have recently personally experienced.  I used to have 370 or so Facebook friends.  I cut myself off from a mere 80 or so but now I have 205.  That’s 85 people who simply dropped me after I announced I wasn’t a Christian anymore.  Nice.
  4. I have watched people who, believing the end of the world was coming, ran up their credit cards and quit good jobs to be come reclusive only to find themselves in serious trouble afterwards.  This is the best example I can come up with of stupid behavior caused by religion, but I could list so many I might have the content for a book in and of itself.

That’s just my experience, historically speaking Christianity has the one problem every religion has, a creation of an ‘us’ verses ‘them’ mentality that leads to taking actions against them to justify exaltation of us.  It gets worse when you consider some theologies.

Theology:

Historically speaking Christianity has not had a good moral track record.

  1. The Catholics killed, raped, tortured, etc. people who left the faith.  They branded anyone different who did not hold their faith and punished them accordingly.  The repressed any genuine scientific and philosophical pursuit if it contradicted the teachings of the church.  The Spanish Inquisition wasn’t an anomaly, it was normal operating procedure for the Catholic church.
  2. The Protestant Church was no better.  I would say that the Western expansion into Native American territory and the genocide of indigenous population in the United States was largely due to the Calvinist religious belief held highly at the time of manifest destiny encouraged by the notion of Predestination.  You don’t have to treat people as equals or human, if you view them as predestined for hell.
  3. Regardless of stripe, the moral codes of Christianity are probably responsible for more emotional, mental and other forms of abuse.  Shame and guilt due to imaginary problems that force human beings to act against their nature lead to depression and low self-esteem which preachers exploit.  In some cases, people have committed suicide rather than face the fact they can’t live up to the code placed upon them.
  4. Cultist behavior is present in Christianity and all religions.  I love it when Christians try to differentiate themselves from what they perceive to be cults.  Mostly they will say they don’t try to control people’s sexuality or money.  So what then of this sins of sexuality list and the doctrine of tithing?  Religions all have cult behavior. All of them.

Spirituality:

For me I think I live by two notions: 1) I don’t need religion to be spiritual and 2) I don’t need religion to be moral. Spirituality and ethics are found in ourselves, in our humanity. Religions tap into that, but they twist it to their own purpose. They find ways to interpret the rules to slide through a side door into greed, lust and all the other seven deadly ‘sins’.  It’s a game of moral “I am better than you.” – not spirituality.

Conclusion:

“Do no harm” and “Treat others as you would want to be treated” in some form appear in every religion.  The problem is I can say both of these and not be religious.  It is the strongest indicator that Christopher Hitchens was right, that morality comes from simply being human, but religions steal that notion and then add their own so that certain groups of people gain and others lose. There is nothing moral about that and to pretend there is, well, that is just indoctrination talking.  Sorry, spent too much time as a religious person to not know that is true.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Problems with Christianity – The ‘Christian Nation’ Myth

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Discussion:

I have book on my shelves called “The Myth of a Christian Nation” by Gregory Boyd.  I know there is a rebuttal book out there to it and one day I have plans on reading both of them, but I stand with Boyd on this issue. I have read many of the founding fathers and there was little said at the founding of the nation about it being a Christian one. In fact part of the issue with the first amendment is this very thing – preventing any state religion including Christianity. No matter how much Christians would desire this to be true, it is not. If anything this is a deist nation or a secular one by design.

See the source image

In truth at the founding of the country under the current constitution, Christian preachers actually decried the fact that the document didn’t make Christianity the state religion.  The called the government it created ‘godless’. What we have is a nation founded on enlightenment principles which would make us more deistic and not Christian at all, as deists in general distrust religion including Christianity.

See the source image

Most of this mythology can actually be traced back the 1950s.  Yes, that recent because that is the time when people still fresh with the accomplishments of WWII with its patriotic fervor and feelings of threat from ‘godless communism”.  To combat this a lobbying movement started to do a lot of things, but some of the results were “under God’ in the pledge of allegiance; which basically excludes those who don’t believe, and “In God We Trust” which replaced “Mind Your Business” on the money.

See the source image

The results of this is a generation who grew up with both of these things and many of them will tell you they have always been there; but they haven’t.  Personally the old pledge was far more inclusive and the motto “Mind Your Business” would have been a better lesson of “Mind Your OWN Business” which would probably lead to less offended people these days.

See the source imageThe main issue for me is as I watch Christians, is that they use this myth to justify political involvement. To press a Christian agenda on the nation like they were trying to get it back to its roots.  The roots of this nation were never Christian to begin with and the problems this has caused far outweighed the benefits. It pretty much has caused more division in the nation than it ever has unity. I realize I am suggesting that perhaps Christians would be better off dropping the myth and most of them will not listen, but the truth of it is – the Christian nation myth is just that a myth. Believing in mythology as if it is fact has never done anyone any good.

Time to Look Through the Eye:

Faith:

The painful truth is you cannot make anyone believe something by force.  No matter what draconian measures are taken to order people’s behaviors, their beliefs will always remain their own.  Their thoughts and feeling on things are their own.  Faith cannot be forced and it is the height of folly to think otherwise. People believe what they want to believe and to try to make them believe something else by force is sheer folly. You can only cause outward behavior to line up with your faith’s moral rules. This does not have the effect that is intended; which it to make the person believe, but rather it creates resentment and often underground activities that break those moral codes. The moment people can shake those moral codes off they do.  Religious dictatorships end in revolution and rejection as historically they are the most brutal along side of communist ones.

Religion:

See the source image

Historically, there is really only one reason to claim something is about God and that it to give you such moral authority, that people never question your real motives. Christians invoking the Christian nation myth, often claim that their actions are trying to get the nation back to its roots. But the root of this nation are deistic and rational, not Christian and emotional. Christians use the myth (which is a falsehood) to secure certain support politically and this is more about marrying their religion to the state which is something the 1st amendment strictly forbids.

Theology:

I have never been sure about the theology of this.  Part of Catholic theology has had the theology of violent overthrow of government that oppressive, but this theology has never been official sanctioned. On the flip side if one can through democratic means enlist this idea then the church has never been reluctant to join themselves to the state with past theologies like the divine right of kings and for Protestants in America – manifest destiny. Almost always the theological paring of faith and state has disastrous consequences for some other group of people who the people of faith dislike. They then use the state to not only do the dirty work of oppression but often engage in murder, theft and rape while they do so.

Theologically speaking, Christians some to forget that whole ‘love thy neighbor’ commandment.  Through their marriage to the state they can eliminate their enemies and opponents using the state, while all the while claiming to love the people they are eliminating. It’s a relationship that allows power while at the same time claiming something else. No church-state marriage has ended without they happy couple destroying someone else that the church claims to love, while at the same time sanctioning the state doing the killing.

Spirituality:

I don’t have time for this anymore.  My main concern as a deist is that all faiths have equal voice and that no one faith gains so much power it can eliminate the others. Spiritually my humanism hits here as well.  I was Born on Earth, I am one member of the human race. My politics are to be free and let others be free as well. My religion is simply to love. Yeah, that sounds actually like more of what the founders were aiming for and doesn’t involve propagating the mythology of the United States being a Christian Nation.

Related image

Conclusion:

I used start each church service with the pledge of allegiance, and we were very patriotic.  I however knew for a long time that the Christian nation thing was a new addition historically.  I am ultimately glad to be rid of it.  It doesn’t need to be Christian nation to be a good nation.  It needs to respect my rights and liberties and the rights and liberties of my fellow citizens more than anything else.  Part of that is not allowing Christianity to be the state religion because as always it will abuse such power. This myth is one of the ways it seeks such power and it needs to be called out for what it is – mythology.

Continuing to Walk the Path,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – My Deism

/ Ed Raby Sr / Leave a comment

 

Happy Thor’s Day

I suppose my belief system is a little complicated. However, at its root or its central tenet is being a deist. However my deism, is not of the same flavor as most people would think of it; nor is it classical deism. Some of the things classical deism upholds, I have modified a little.

  1. Deism would maintain at single creator based on reason.  I would say based on reason, you can’t dismiss the idea of a group of powerful beings being the creators following a common plan or that the universe itself is the creator. I hold out a lot of possibilities here as far as what the guiding force behind our origin might be, if any.
  2. I do maintain with the deists that there is an order and complexity to the universe that imply a creator or creators of some kind.
  3. I agree that there is a limit to human knowledge and understanding that makes it hard; if not impossible, to understand the full nature of the divine.
  4. What ever divine power or powers exist have given man his faculties to both create and uphold his own ethical and moral principles.
  5. Human beings should indeed be free to find, know and worship these divine force or forces in their own way. All views of the divine are to be respected as long as they don’t violate the rights of others.
  6. All human beings are equal creations of this divine power. As such they are accorded rights based on that natural equality.  I do have some things I debate about rights at this point though. More on that at some other time.

Faith:

As far as faith in the divine goes, I have faith that something exists at the present.  I have an active faith in the existence of something divine. I must state for the record, that I can no longer dismiss the notion that the atheist might be right but at the same time I simply do not think humanity has achieved a level of knowledge that can say – “There is No God” with 100% confidence. I believe there is something out there that we cannot comprehend and that no religion can truly explain.

Religion:

I maintain that people have their right to any religion they like including the right to not have one at all.  I draw the line however with any religion whose followers want to impose their views, ethics and moral code on others.   If you use your religion to justify harming others or force them to take certain actions because of it; I would say that is wrong as well. Religion is very much like a penis, as one actress in a movie remarked, and should have the same societal limitations.

See the source imageTheology:

As a long time theologian ( yes, I have degrees in Biblical Studies and Theology), I used to rely on special revelation; namely the Holy Bible of Protestant Christianity, for my foundation for my work in theology.  Having come to recognize fully that the Bible is a fully human book and that the divine has little to do with, I have to look at how to understand the divine differently.

There is no such thing as special revelation in the sense any so-called holy book is a direct revelation of God. You might find the divine revealed in the human thoughts that are presented in such books; as the authors discuss and tell you what they think about the divine, but those thoughts are human not divine.  To do theology as a deist, I am left with my own reason as I observe the world around me.  I am left with my human facilities alone as I observe and think about the divine.  Part of that is perhaps looking at religions to find certain foundational beliefs common to all that can be helpful in this process, but no one stands the divine better than another.  They all may have some truth, but none of them have THE TRUTH.

Spirituality: 

Deism allows me to engage one other thing and that is to explore the possibility that there is more to humanity than the biochemistry we are left with, if we remove the divine from the equation.   That there is a possibility that man is more than body, mind and emotions but has a spiritual side and an immortal soul. I probably engage this with my more pagan side of my belief system, but it is deism that opens the door to it.

Conclusion: 

I have fully embraced the notion of pursuing the real divine that actually exists without special revelation.  Natural revelation makes things far more interesting and to be honest, more difficult.  But there is a greater honesty to deism as compared to religious pursuits of the divine that I used to embrace.  Only time will tell where this will lead me.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!

Odin’s Eye – Objections to Christianity – Part 3 – The Cross and Empty Tomb – An Imaginary Solution to an Imaginary Problem.

/ Ed Raby Sr / 1 Comment

Happy Thor’s Day

Introduction:

I know I will probably get a reaction out of this one and I am not trying to be provocative.  I am simply trying to get people to see the logical problems of Salvation through Christ.  Once you dismiss sin as a made up concept, you could say that it is really unnecessary to go after ‘God’s’ solution to the problem, but the whole of Christianity revolves around Christ’s work on the cross and the resurrection to save people from sin and from eternal damnation. You might say it is the core doctrine no matter what flavor of Christianity you live by so it deserves some attention.

Faith:

Of course, the first thing each flavor of Christianity stakes out is how said salvation is achieved with Christ.  The faith versus works controversy starts right away in the first century. James and Paul go at it right in the Bible.  Now I heard multiple explanations from both Protestants and Catholics of why James and Paul are not arguing about the same thing really but they practically quote each other with only one variation.  One says salvation in Christ cannot be of works so no one can boast, and the other one says that without works it is impossible to show faith. No matter how you logically try to get them to be ‘defending the same salvation only from different directions”; it is contradictory.  One is saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, and the other is saying it does.

So what this really shows is that even in the Bible and among early Christians, they had disputes and disagreements about how this works and thus it points to the Bible not being inspired by God so much as it records those early debates among the faithful about how salvation worked.  That makes the Bible very human and also not the Word of God because if God had actually wanted to tell us how this works because it seems it would be the most important thing for us to know, he would have made it plain, straightforward and quite frankly non-contradictory.

Religion:

Of course, every flavor of Christianity goes even further with specifics and added on things to the doctrine of salvation in Christ.  The Catholic Church plain out tells you that you can only be saved from death through them and no one else.  Many Protestant denominations will tell you the same.  My former denomination would tell people that they had the whole gospel, not just part of it.  Salvation is complicated by religion because religion seeks to use these ideas to keep people grateful and faithful for telling those people their version of ‘the truth’.

Theology:

Religion aside though, my objections are theological – what kind of God do we have, who claims to be merciful and loving, but demands for his followers to be forgiving without condition but doesn’t do so himself?  It also brings up the question of the ability to forgive in that we are expected to forgive each other without condition because we can, even as sinners. Yet, a holy God can’t simply forgive without sacrificing his only begotten son in one of the cruelest ways ever devised by man.  He must have this sacrifice or he cannot forgive at all and I must have faith in it and the resurrection or he will not forgive me specifically.  Worse yet if I don’t forgive others as a Christian, he won’t forgive me. He can choose to not forgive others and still be a holy God, but if I don’t forgive, I cannot be saved?  So I as a ‘sinner’ have not only a greater expectation than my creator but also I am more capable because I can do this forgiveness without conditions, but he cannot?

This bit of ‘logic’ pales in comparison to the fact that in order to forgive us he must sacrifice himself to himself, to appease himself to save us from himself. See the problem? Well Ed, what if then the whole doctrine of salvation as it currently stands is man-made and that isn’t the real one?  My response – exactly and that is probably true from the start of Christianity to where it actually stands today.   It seems to me that this idea is just as man-made because a supreme being could have come up with the simple plan to just forgive people. As Jesus is praying in the garden “if it be possible, let this cup pass from me” we would see the opening up the heavens and God saying -“You know what, I have a better plan – let’s just forgive people like I expect them to forgive each other.” That would be just, logical and consistent.

There is also another theological side issue – How much of a sacrifice is it really for Jesus if he knows for certain (which he indicates three times in the gospels) that he will rise from the dead?  Honestly, if he knew that and most people who have faith believe he did and the text certainly seems to indicate he did, then it isn’t that big of a sacrifice? He knows he is not going to ultimately be dead in the end, so why not do it as there is no ultimate risk to him?  In the end, Jesus is risking nothing himself as God, just going through the inconvenience of temporal suffering.  Why? To make a point? What point would that be, when there is nothing actually sacrificed in the end?

Spirituality:

I guess this leaves me with the question from a spiritual point of view as to what salvation is? Or does it?  I mean, if there is no such thing as sin, there is no need to be saved from it. Of course, then I could be left with the question of what the real divine reality might expect from me?  I guess only thing then is to live a good life regardless of what that divine reality might be. Marcus Aurelius rightly observes, in my opinion, this in his famous quote on the good life.

See the source image

Of course, you are kind of left to things yourself as to define what virtues you will live by to attain that good life. In short, what is defined as a good life is left to you.

Conclusion:

So with number three down, I am left with my final objection to consider at the end of this month concerning Christianity and the Christian god. Namely that the justice of the God of the Bible is suspect, particularly when it comes to the doctrine of final destination – aka Hell.

The rest of the schedule for Odin’s Eye for 2018 is as follows:

December 13 – Why I Am A Pagan

December 21 – Yule

December 28 – Objections to Christianity – Part 4 – The Justice of the God (Hell)

Then it will be on to the New Year.

I want to note at this point that once mt last objection is laid bare, I will be putting all four of them in one page so that if anyone, want’s to attempt to answer them, I will gladly hear you out and respond at that point.

I remain,

The Rabyd Skald – Wandering Soul, Bard, and Philosopher. The Grey Wayfarer.

Skaal!!!