A serial rapist lies on his deathbed. He's been thinking about his life, and a wave of recrimination hits him for all the women he's hurt, all the pain he's caused. He sees what his behavior truly was, and he's grief-stricken. He doesn't want to die like this, realizing that he has not done one iota of good in his life. Sure, no one ever caught him in what he did, and he appeared good on the outside. But he can't avoid seeing the truth now. So he calls out to God, he genuinely repents of his sins, he accepts the cross and the sacrifice of Jesus. Five minutes later, the rapist is dead. Jesus, sitting on the throne of judgement, welcomes the new child of God into Heaven.
Victim #1 was attacked when she was 18. It was long, it was brutal, and she never saw the attacker's face. She tried to pick her life back up, go to college, not be defined by this one event. She talked to a counselor, she considered God, she even had periods in her life where she had forgiven the attacker. She would put this behind her, meet someone, and start a family. Yet every time she tried to get close to another man, she froze. She flashed back to that moment, physical contact repealed her, and she died alone. Jesus, sitting on the throne of judgement, says, "Depart from me, I never knew you."
Victim #2 was attacked when she was 45. A mother of two children, vice president of a company, successful in every way possible. Things like this didn't happen to her. Yet, she was attacked. She rallied back, also determined to pick up her life. With the help of her family, she was successful, and decided to help others who were attacked in the same way, or those exploited by similar situations. She directs her company's resources to this job, and ends up helping hundreds. Her death was mourned by all she helped, and her life was celebrated for how she was not overcome by evil. Jesus, sitting on the throne of judgement, tells her, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."
Victim #3 was special. She was kidnapped by the attacker when she was five, and not rescued until ten years later. She had been used in horrible ways, and consequently, was unable to rise above her circumstances. She offered herself to anyone who would have her, let them use her body in any way they pleased. She found things that made her body feel better, that made her only happy. She died alone, unnoticed, not mourned by anyone. Jesus, sitting on the throne of judgement, tells her, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."
The "worst" person of the group went to eternal paradise. The other three, the innocent victims, end up in hell, because they have "rejected God."
In what way is this just? I've been on a few blogs that had provided examples as to why they find it difficult to believe in God -- such as the circumstances that occured to Victim #3. Or that recent news, where I believe the daughter was held in the basement by her own father.
A common Christian response was that there would be justice done in the end, for what happened to the victim. Really? Because my understanding is that if the attacker confesses his sins and truly repents, the confessor is then free. There is no punishment, there is no justice in a legal system sort of way (such as rape someone, go to jail). Rather, Jesus has almost provided the "get out of jail" free card.
And the victims, since they have rejected God, end up in hell. So at what point did the victims receive this supposed justice?
I have a feeling the argument would be that Jesus took the punishment the rapist deserved, but that really doesn't cut it for me. Jesus didn't rape the victims, the rapist did. And if Jesus takes the punishment, then that is a distortion of what justice is all about.
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Friday, July 18, 2008
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Does God truly forgive?
From the dictionary, forgiveness is: to give up resentment of or claim to requital for. b: to grant relief from payment of. 2: to cease to feel resentment against (an offender)
Penal substitution is essentially Jesus punished in everyone's place in order to satisfy God's justice. Through this process, humanity can receive forgiveness.
I suppose the first question that arises is this: is forgiveness truly forgiveness if the "pound of flesh" is measured out first? If someone kills your child, and so you kill that person's child in turn and say to the person that you now forgive him/her, have you truly forgiven that person? Or is the forgiveness based on punishment, and what is due to you as the wronged party?
For me, I tend to see forgiveness as not only releasing the negative emotions, but relinquishing any claim to compensation for the wrong act. Jesus mentions this a lot, in that one is to forgive, and not seek vengeance. If vengeance is sought, and then forgiveness is granted, forgiveness becomes dependent on satisfying the vengeance.
So does the Penal substitution theory, which dominates conservative Protestantism (and possibly branches of Catholicism?) violate forgiveness as it's commonly identified? After all, God doesn't forgive unconditionally. Someone still had to be punished before that forgiveness was granted to people. God didn't simply relinquish any claims of satisfaction -- those claims were fulfilled in Jesus, in delivering that required 'pound of flesh.'
The only reason, under this atonement theory, that God doesn't punish people is because Jesus was punished. And to me, that violates the definition of forgiveness, because God didn't give a need for satisfaction, God didn't "cease" to feel anything about sin. The only reason why he ceased is because the person's punishment was still meted out, only not to the person.
That's not forgiveness, that's a transaction. It becomes an 'if-then' statement, it becomes a system of rewards, and paints a rather poor picture of how God forgives. I'm not even sure you can say it's unconditional forgiveness, because quite a few conditions were set before forgiveness even took place.
Penal substitution is essentially Jesus punished in everyone's place in order to satisfy God's justice. Through this process, humanity can receive forgiveness.
I suppose the first question that arises is this: is forgiveness truly forgiveness if the "pound of flesh" is measured out first? If someone kills your child, and so you kill that person's child in turn and say to the person that you now forgive him/her, have you truly forgiven that person? Or is the forgiveness based on punishment, and what is due to you as the wronged party?
For me, I tend to see forgiveness as not only releasing the negative emotions, but relinquishing any claim to compensation for the wrong act. Jesus mentions this a lot, in that one is to forgive, and not seek vengeance. If vengeance is sought, and then forgiveness is granted, forgiveness becomes dependent on satisfying the vengeance.
So does the Penal substitution theory, which dominates conservative Protestantism (and possibly branches of Catholicism?) violate forgiveness as it's commonly identified? After all, God doesn't forgive unconditionally. Someone still had to be punished before that forgiveness was granted to people. God didn't simply relinquish any claims of satisfaction -- those claims were fulfilled in Jesus, in delivering that required 'pound of flesh.'
The only reason, under this atonement theory, that God doesn't punish people is because Jesus was punished. And to me, that violates the definition of forgiveness, because God didn't give a need for satisfaction, God didn't "cease" to feel anything about sin. The only reason why he ceased is because the person's punishment was still meted out, only not to the person.
That's not forgiveness, that's a transaction. It becomes an 'if-then' statement, it becomes a system of rewards, and paints a rather poor picture of how God forgives. I'm not even sure you can say it's unconditional forgiveness, because quite a few conditions were set before forgiveness even took place.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Holding God accountable.
I've been reading some different posts, in terms of reconciling the amount of suffering in the world with an all-loving, just, good, omnipotent God. You know, the usual problem of evil.
I'm going to pull from what one blog posted. Marie, at http://www.unbelieveanot.blogspot.com/
said the following:
I am reading a book about the war in Bosnia. Here is a passage...
"For a moment I could see nothing in the smoky gloom. My torch began to flicker, dimmed and died. I beat it back to life on my thigh and looked again. Three women looked back at me. They were kneeling in a small box-shaped pit sunk into the stone floor, huddled together in fear, their arms and hands entwined in support. Normally the hole would have been used to store grain and covered with the wooden trapdoor that now lay upright on its hinges behind their backs. It would have been the ideal place to hide. Close the lid and the pit would be nearly invisible. There would have been just enough room for three people to lie beneath it. What gave them away? I wondered. A cough? A sob?
Two of the women were in their twenties, the third was an old lady. Someone had shot her in the mouth and her shattered dentures cascaded with her own teeth down her front like mashed melon pips. One girl had been shot repeatedly in the chest. It was difficult to tell whether the other had her throat cut or been shot; a great gash of blood cresented her neck. The expression on their faces had survived the damage. It was so clear. A time-valve that opened directly on to those last moments. So you saw what they saw. I hope beyond hope that I never see it again."
He also describes a man whose youngest daughter was raped beside him when he was on his death-bed. -- end quote from Marie's blog.
Those experiences are suffering, and they are evil. Plain and simple. It would be hideous of anyone to approach those people and say that it is all part of God's plan, and God's plan is good, and that God loves them so much.
The standard response to this is free will. That the above is a consequence of God giving man free will. Unless, of course, one is a Calvinist, and if that is the case, there's no issue. The problem with the free will argument is that it comes across as God valuing free will above all else. If someone decides to kill me and succeeds, my free will wasn't respected. The murderer's was. My free will was overridden by somebody else's.
Everyone has the freedom to make a choice, yes. But the freedom to make a choice does not coincide into the freedom to act on that choice. If our child is about to make a poor decision, we stop the child from using his/her free will. If an adult is about to commit a crime and we know about it, we are to report that adult, and thus stop the adult from acting on his/her free will. If we do not, we are held accountable for that crime, in the sense that we did nothing to stop it.
So wondering about evil in comparison to the Christian God is valid. Take the current situation in Darfur. It is very, very hard to hold onto any concept of justice in the world when atrocities like that occur. If you think about it enough, it can lead to questioning one's faith.
What's the most interesting part about those questions is the response it generally creates. Marie isn't the only one questioning, Slapdash is going so as well. Here's what I've seen so far.
Common response one: God isn't a genie, and only gives us what's best for us. Simply because you personally have had some bad things happen in your life is no excuse.
Problem with that response: The focus of the question is on situations such as Darfur. It has nothing to do with the individual, so that the response does is change the focus of the question and then attack the questioner as prideful and sinful. But this is attacking the person, rather than addressing the topic.
Common response two: God gave you free will, so you might choose something that's bad, but God also wants to make sure that you choose to love him, if you decide to do so.
Problem: Again, the focus shifts to the individual, and any bad things that might happen to the individual. It completely removes Darfur from the equation, and how the free will of those victims is violated over and over again. This has nothing to do with my free will, and again is attacking me, rather than addressing the topic.
Common response three: Who are we to question God, who is so far above us?
Problem: If you don't question God, how do you know you're actually following God? More to the point, how do you know you're following a good and just God, unless you ask questions? Otherwise, you run into the whole 'I was just following orders' mindset, and we've seen where that can lead. Plus, would you say this to a Holocaust survivor?
Common response four: God's ways are mysterious, and we're just a blip on eternity.
Problem: If God's ways are that mysterious, then again, how can you know anything about God? And if the whole point of this life is to get us to the right location in the afterlife ... what do you use for proof? If God is in fact not saving people from situations such as Darfur when people are praying, what guarantee is there that God would answer prayers in terms of getting to heaven? Or that the concept of salvation is correct? And again -- would you say this to a Holocaust survivor?
Common response five: Man is sinful, and this is the cost of his rebellion. We deserve nothing less.
Problem: This is a horrific viewpoint, holding all of humanity accountable for the actions of two people, and it's pretty much what a man who hits his wife or children would say. Also, would you say that someone who survived the Holocaust deserved that? Would you say that to the survivor's face?
Ultimately, none of the common responses deal with the matter on hand: why is there so much unrestricted evil in the face of claims about God. All of the responses turn the focus back to who is asking the original question, and lets God almost slide off the hook, letting the original problem dangle. And by accountable, I don't mean yelling at God about how everything is his fault. I mean accountable in holding God accountable to claims that God utters, as we would do for anyone. If God says that his character is all-loving, and all-just, what support is there for that, and can we see support of that in the world today?
Basically, the situation in terms of Darfur, or any other atrocity on that scale is essentially holding God accountable to what is said about him/her. If we are told that God is all-powerful, can we then be pointed to a demonstration of that power? Can we see prayers be answered by an all-loving, or just God, in order to back up the claim of God's characteristics? If we can't see a full-scale demonstration of that here, what validity do we have for holding onto a blissful paradise in the next life?
This post has nothing to do with anger, and nothing to do with pride. It has nothing to do with demanding that God answer my every fulfillment. It has to do with a sense of frustration in watching people asking honest, heart-felt questions, and watching the answers attempt to rip them apart without ever addressing the actual problem. I have a great deal more respect for someone who does hold to this view of God and says to me that they don't know why so much evil is allowed, but that they've experienced what the Bible has promised, compared to someone who smugly informs me that I'm a spoiled sinful person who simply wants my own way and God is all-good and such. Because I'm not asking on my behalf: I'm asking on those who have no voice, on those who seem to be put here only to suffer. It also has to do with the fact that if someone wants me to honestly evaluate their answer, they need to honestly answer my question, and not shift the topic to something self-focused. My life is incredibly blessed compared to about ... well, most of the world. Almost all of the world, actually. I am very aware of this, and grateful for this.
I'm going to pull from what one blog posted. Marie, at http://www.unbelieveanot.blogspot.com/
said the following:
I am reading a book about the war in Bosnia. Here is a passage...
"For a moment I could see nothing in the smoky gloom. My torch began to flicker, dimmed and died. I beat it back to life on my thigh and looked again. Three women looked back at me. They were kneeling in a small box-shaped pit sunk into the stone floor, huddled together in fear, their arms and hands entwined in support. Normally the hole would have been used to store grain and covered with the wooden trapdoor that now lay upright on its hinges behind their backs. It would have been the ideal place to hide. Close the lid and the pit would be nearly invisible. There would have been just enough room for three people to lie beneath it. What gave them away? I wondered. A cough? A sob?
Two of the women were in their twenties, the third was an old lady. Someone had shot her in the mouth and her shattered dentures cascaded with her own teeth down her front like mashed melon pips. One girl had been shot repeatedly in the chest. It was difficult to tell whether the other had her throat cut or been shot; a great gash of blood cresented her neck. The expression on their faces had survived the damage. It was so clear. A time-valve that opened directly on to those last moments. So you saw what they saw. I hope beyond hope that I never see it again."
He also describes a man whose youngest daughter was raped beside him when he was on his death-bed. -- end quote from Marie's blog.
Those experiences are suffering, and they are evil. Plain and simple. It would be hideous of anyone to approach those people and say that it is all part of God's plan, and God's plan is good, and that God loves them so much.
The standard response to this is free will. That the above is a consequence of God giving man free will. Unless, of course, one is a Calvinist, and if that is the case, there's no issue. The problem with the free will argument is that it comes across as God valuing free will above all else. If someone decides to kill me and succeeds, my free will wasn't respected. The murderer's was. My free will was overridden by somebody else's.
Everyone has the freedom to make a choice, yes. But the freedom to make a choice does not coincide into the freedom to act on that choice. If our child is about to make a poor decision, we stop the child from using his/her free will. If an adult is about to commit a crime and we know about it, we are to report that adult, and thus stop the adult from acting on his/her free will. If we do not, we are held accountable for that crime, in the sense that we did nothing to stop it.
So wondering about evil in comparison to the Christian God is valid. Take the current situation in Darfur. It is very, very hard to hold onto any concept of justice in the world when atrocities like that occur. If you think about it enough, it can lead to questioning one's faith.
What's the most interesting part about those questions is the response it generally creates. Marie isn't the only one questioning, Slapdash is going so as well. Here's what I've seen so far.
Common response one: God isn't a genie, and only gives us what's best for us. Simply because you personally have had some bad things happen in your life is no excuse.
Problem with that response: The focus of the question is on situations such as Darfur. It has nothing to do with the individual, so that the response does is change the focus of the question and then attack the questioner as prideful and sinful. But this is attacking the person, rather than addressing the topic.
Common response two: God gave you free will, so you might choose something that's bad, but God also wants to make sure that you choose to love him, if you decide to do so.
Problem: Again, the focus shifts to the individual, and any bad things that might happen to the individual. It completely removes Darfur from the equation, and how the free will of those victims is violated over and over again. This has nothing to do with my free will, and again is attacking me, rather than addressing the topic.
Common response three: Who are we to question God, who is so far above us?
Problem: If you don't question God, how do you know you're actually following God? More to the point, how do you know you're following a good and just God, unless you ask questions? Otherwise, you run into the whole 'I was just following orders' mindset, and we've seen where that can lead. Plus, would you say this to a Holocaust survivor?
Common response four: God's ways are mysterious, and we're just a blip on eternity.
Problem: If God's ways are that mysterious, then again, how can you know anything about God? And if the whole point of this life is to get us to the right location in the afterlife ... what do you use for proof? If God is in fact not saving people from situations such as Darfur when people are praying, what guarantee is there that God would answer prayers in terms of getting to heaven? Or that the concept of salvation is correct? And again -- would you say this to a Holocaust survivor?
Common response five: Man is sinful, and this is the cost of his rebellion. We deserve nothing less.
Problem: This is a horrific viewpoint, holding all of humanity accountable for the actions of two people, and it's pretty much what a man who hits his wife or children would say. Also, would you say that someone who survived the Holocaust deserved that? Would you say that to the survivor's face?
Ultimately, none of the common responses deal with the matter on hand: why is there so much unrestricted evil in the face of claims about God. All of the responses turn the focus back to who is asking the original question, and lets God almost slide off the hook, letting the original problem dangle. And by accountable, I don't mean yelling at God about how everything is his fault. I mean accountable in holding God accountable to claims that God utters, as we would do for anyone. If God says that his character is all-loving, and all-just, what support is there for that, and can we see support of that in the world today?
Basically, the situation in terms of Darfur, or any other atrocity on that scale is essentially holding God accountable to what is said about him/her. If we are told that God is all-powerful, can we then be pointed to a demonstration of that power? Can we see prayers be answered by an all-loving, or just God, in order to back up the claim of God's characteristics? If we can't see a full-scale demonstration of that here, what validity do we have for holding onto a blissful paradise in the next life?
This post has nothing to do with anger, and nothing to do with pride. It has nothing to do with demanding that God answer my every fulfillment. It has to do with a sense of frustration in watching people asking honest, heart-felt questions, and watching the answers attempt to rip them apart without ever addressing the actual problem. I have a great deal more respect for someone who does hold to this view of God and says to me that they don't know why so much evil is allowed, but that they've experienced what the Bible has promised, compared to someone who smugly informs me that I'm a spoiled sinful person who simply wants my own way and God is all-good and such. Because I'm not asking on my behalf: I'm asking on those who have no voice, on those who seem to be put here only to suffer. It also has to do with the fact that if someone wants me to honestly evaluate their answer, they need to honestly answer my question, and not shift the topic to something self-focused. My life is incredibly blessed compared to about ... well, most of the world. Almost all of the world, actually. I am very aware of this, and grateful for this.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Second Coming, only not really related.
This post is going to be more along the lines of wondering out loud, so it might be scattered. Or, depending on one's perspective, more scattered than usual.
It was sparked by a post in another blog, in terms of what Christians should do here and now for social justice, environmentalism and so on. One thing that has always intrigued me about a fanatical approach to the Second Coming. This approach would be summed up in people instigating wars to fulfill a prophecy that has to happen before Jesus comes back, or people very gleeful over the thought of Jesus tossing millions into hell without anyone feeling a sense of compassion. One could say this is an exaggeration, but in a later book in the Left Behind series where Jesus is dividing up the sheep and the goats, such a thing does happen. It involves the human who was helping the anti-Christ, and Jesus orders to angels to drag this man to the lake of fire. The man starts screaming for mercy, and all the 'sheep' that are watching don't have a problem with it. I did, because I started to picture the scene, and then tried to reconcile it with the Jesus from the Gospels. This man knew he was wrong at this point, that he had been on the losing side and was about to be tortured for an eternity.
But I digress. And on a side note, I haven't really read the Left Behind series. I started the first book out of curiosity, but the lack of writing ability alone deterred me. I peeked into the book that detailed Jesus actually here, which was the scene above. It was repulsive, especially if this book is read by children.
And I'm still digressing, and shall circle around my point now. One thing that's always bothered me about an approach where efforts don't matter period is that it tends to excuse a lot. One is no longer held accountable for one's actions, because it doesn't matter. So long as that person feels appropriately bad and asks for forgiveness the right way -- such as the Sinner's Prayer -- one is assured a place in heaven. You can treat the poor with disdain, you can abuse the earth, but if you hold the right beliefs, you're set.
I highly doubt it works that way. Efforts do matter, and it goes along the lines of 'faith with works.' There are people who say that we can trash the environment beyond belief, because when Jesus returns, everything will be new and sinless. The problem is, if someone feels justified in treating the Earth like a giant trash dump, why then would God welcome someone into heaven after that person dies? Regardless of one's view on Earth, it was still created by God (Christian viewpoint, atheists would disagree). It was given for a specific purpose, and with specific commands. Even if the Earth is flawed and fallen now, shouldn't some measure of dominion and respect still be given? If I give a child a simplistic doll that is dented and a little dirty, and the child then proceeds to abuse that doll beyond belief, why would I then proceed to give the child a doll in pristine condition? What has the child done to prove that s/he can handle the pristine doll when the child treated the simple doll with disdain?
Shouldn't the same policy work in terms of heaven? If God has given us life and people and this planet, and we turn around and say, "Nothing I do here matters so long as I have the right beliefs," then do we really get into some sort of paradise? I can't help but feeling those that await the Second Coming with a warlike fervor might be in for a rude awakening. If they're already mistreating what God has given, why is God going to give them something better? This isn't going along a sense of entitlement, in that someone behaved better and thus has 'earned' heaven. But nor can someone go around saying that they'll get into heaven and yet behave in a horrible fashion. It almost seems that those who speak out against environmentalism are behaving in an entitlement fashion, because they won't suffer the consequences. They're 'in.'
I realize that no one is going to behave perfectly 100% here. But there is a difference between closing one's eyes and starting the countdown to heave, and actively trying to live out God's will here and see some of the goodness here -- and screwing up at certain points along the way. Even though Paul states about salvation through grace, it's also very clear that people will be judged based on works. And works are evidence of God's grace working through someone's life.
It was sparked by a post in another blog, in terms of what Christians should do here and now for social justice, environmentalism and so on. One thing that has always intrigued me about a fanatical approach to the Second Coming. This approach would be summed up in people instigating wars to fulfill a prophecy that has to happen before Jesus comes back, or people very gleeful over the thought of Jesus tossing millions into hell without anyone feeling a sense of compassion. One could say this is an exaggeration, but in a later book in the Left Behind series where Jesus is dividing up the sheep and the goats, such a thing does happen. It involves the human who was helping the anti-Christ, and Jesus orders to angels to drag this man to the lake of fire. The man starts screaming for mercy, and all the 'sheep' that are watching don't have a problem with it. I did, because I started to picture the scene, and then tried to reconcile it with the Jesus from the Gospels. This man knew he was wrong at this point, that he had been on the losing side and was about to be tortured for an eternity.
But I digress. And on a side note, I haven't really read the Left Behind series. I started the first book out of curiosity, but the lack of writing ability alone deterred me. I peeked into the book that detailed Jesus actually here, which was the scene above. It was repulsive, especially if this book is read by children.
And I'm still digressing, and shall circle around my point now. One thing that's always bothered me about an approach where efforts don't matter period is that it tends to excuse a lot. One is no longer held accountable for one's actions, because it doesn't matter. So long as that person feels appropriately bad and asks for forgiveness the right way -- such as the Sinner's Prayer -- one is assured a place in heaven. You can treat the poor with disdain, you can abuse the earth, but if you hold the right beliefs, you're set.
I highly doubt it works that way. Efforts do matter, and it goes along the lines of 'faith with works.' There are people who say that we can trash the environment beyond belief, because when Jesus returns, everything will be new and sinless. The problem is, if someone feels justified in treating the Earth like a giant trash dump, why then would God welcome someone into heaven after that person dies? Regardless of one's view on Earth, it was still created by God (Christian viewpoint, atheists would disagree). It was given for a specific purpose, and with specific commands. Even if the Earth is flawed and fallen now, shouldn't some measure of dominion and respect still be given? If I give a child a simplistic doll that is dented and a little dirty, and the child then proceeds to abuse that doll beyond belief, why would I then proceed to give the child a doll in pristine condition? What has the child done to prove that s/he can handle the pristine doll when the child treated the simple doll with disdain?
Shouldn't the same policy work in terms of heaven? If God has given us life and people and this planet, and we turn around and say, "Nothing I do here matters so long as I have the right beliefs," then do we really get into some sort of paradise? I can't help but feeling those that await the Second Coming with a warlike fervor might be in for a rude awakening. If they're already mistreating what God has given, why is God going to give them something better? This isn't going along a sense of entitlement, in that someone behaved better and thus has 'earned' heaven. But nor can someone go around saying that they'll get into heaven and yet behave in a horrible fashion. It almost seems that those who speak out against environmentalism are behaving in an entitlement fashion, because they won't suffer the consequences. They're 'in.'
I realize that no one is going to behave perfectly 100% here. But there is a difference between closing one's eyes and starting the countdown to heave, and actively trying to live out God's will here and see some of the goodness here -- and screwing up at certain points along the way. Even though Paul states about salvation through grace, it's also very clear that people will be judged based on works. And works are evidence of God's grace working through someone's life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)