Conversation With a Believer

So I had a conversation with my brother Matthew on Facebook last night that, I believe, perfectly illustrates the kind of illogic that seems to define Christianity. It started with a status that I posted about the Titanic...

Threnody: Just saw someone insinuating that God sunk the Titanic because they said he couldn't. While I wanted to slap that person, I must admit that would be perfectly in keeping with the God of the Bible, to kill thousands of innocent people for the hubris of a few ship builders. And is it any wonder I left that God? To clarify, I don't think that is what happened, cuz I don't think that God exists. I'm just saying that if he did, that is the sort of thing he would do.

Matthew: You seriously misunderstand the Bible.

Threnody: Hmm. Canaan. The Flood. Hell itself. No, I think I understand the Bible just fine. I just took off my "everything God does is good" blinders.

Matthew: God is long suffering toward sinners, but he does eventually judge them. This is just.

Threnody:  Who created man, complete with the ability to "fall," and gave him free will? God. After the fall, man had a "sin nature," correct? That he must forever sin, he cannot help himself (without grace)? And who decided to condemn him for that? Oh right, God. So basically, you have someone who condemns every man for being what he was created to be, for acting as he does when (according to the Bible) he cannot help but act that way. And you call that just?

Matthew: No one ever sinned who didn't want to. No one was ever condemned to hell who didn't deserve it by rebelling against God. God eventually gives them exactly what they ask for, which is for him to leave them alone.

Threnody: I did not say we did not want to "sin". (Sin is, by the way, that which God has arbitrarily decided he doesn't like, for no other reason than that he doesn't like it.) I am saying that, according to the Bible, we have no choice but to sin. We cannot help ourselves. Rebelling? I wouldn't say that. Rebelling is choosing to go against the norm, to do that which is not accepted. The reality is, "sin" is the norm, it is all one CAN do (again, according to the Bible). We cannot do "good," even if we wanted to not "sin," the Bible specifically says that anything "good" we do? Yeah, it's also "sin." So, we deserve condemnation for doing only that which we can do, and failing to do that which we cannot do? Without my "everything God does is good" blinders, that is the epitome of unjust.

Matthew: But then God became part of this painful and sinful world, and subjected himself to suffering at the hands of his creation so that he could save them.
And yes, we do rebel. We say that the will of the one who created us is disagreeable to us, so we are going to follow our own will instead. This is deserving of eternal punishment.

Threnody: I have a problem with that. Why do Christians think creating something means that you have ultimate power over everything? Would I kill my son for disagreeing with me and doing what he wants? In the future, it is probably that man will create Artificial Intelligence; will it be acceptable for him to destroy what will be a sentient being when it disagrees with him, its creator? This is the main argument I come up against, that no matter what God is or isn't, the fact that he (supposedly) created us means that we must forever be slaves to his will. I don't think that reasoning holds water. Even the Bible says that God gave us the ability to choose our own path. That's like the stereotypical woman who tells her spouse "Oh, I don't care, you pick," but means "But you better pick what I want or you're sleeping on the couch tonight." That is wrong in that situation, and (if the Bible were true) it is wrong here.

Matthew: And there's the issue. "I have a problem with that." God doesn't behave the way we think he should behave, so we rebel. But his infinite wisdom is beyond our limited scope.

Threnody: How do you know that? Because the Bible says so? And how do you know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says so? That is the true issue here. I have been reasoning from the Bible because you believe the Bible. But the truth is that the Bible has nothing to support its claims of inerrant truth and infallible wisdom save the Bible itself. Saying "it's true because it says so" means it probably isn't true.

Matthew: The truth is that you know it's true, too. I hope you admit it before its too late.

Threnody: That is not the truth, Mott. It is the exact opposite of truth, because I know that it is false. And even if I were wrong, and I were sent screaming to hell, I would still not regret cursing the name of one who would condemn eternally for momentary (for what is a life in the scope of eternity?) "transgressions."