Quote of the Day: “The Doors of Hell Are Locked on the Inside”

 

Eight days after I began work there, as the organization’s first staff member dedicated to supporting its personal computer users, the unionized employees at my local community hospital went on strike. It was February 1, 1990.

Early that morning, as instructed, I drove across a picket line for the first time in my life, showing up for work in blue jeans, a T-shirt, and sneakers. I was handed a mop and bucket, and along with several dozen others, I suffered through a fifteen-minute in-service on the “right way” to clean a patient’s room. Then I was put in charge of a housekeeper’s cart and I spent the next 57 days scrubbing up the Labor and Delivery Unit. This was in the days before the hotel-like “birthing rooms,” where family members gather and watch Mom in extremis, surrounded by flowers, floofy bedding, snack trays, and piped-in music. This was in the days when Mom was wheeled off to the “delivery room” to have the baby, into a forbidding and sterile environment with four gurneys in each room (the hospital had two of these rooms), klieg lights overhead, lots of sharp-edged stainless steel, with no rounded corners on anything, and not a bit of floofery in sight. The floor of each of these delivery rooms was, I can testify, having mopped each of them twice a day (and more, in the case of messy emergencies) for almost two months, about the same square footage as that of an NFL football field.

I enjoyed my time in housekeeping, actually (perhaps mostly because I knew it would not be my life’s work). I got plenty of exercise, and I got to know a side of hospital operations that folks who work in non-patient care areas rarely see. Because I was new to the organization, and because it was a welcoming place, I made lots of friends very quickly. Meals and breaks in the cafeteria (which was also affected by the strike, and where the cooking and serving were also done by non-unionized staff) were social occasions and the source of much dark humor and enjoyment of our mutual plight.

One of the first friends I made at my new workplace was Marian, the Director of Instructional Media. I expect she and I bonded so quickly because she, like me, worked in a technology-dependent field, and because there were not, at that time, many “power users” of such, at this little hospital I came to love.

Marian, considerably older than me, and in less robust health, had been spared the more physically demanding jobs (housekeeping, maintenance, garbage collection, etc.) and had been assigned during the strike as a clerk in the Medical Records department. (I always figured this was down to the fact that Marian had, in a previous life, managed to pick up a PhD in mathematics, and that the powers-that-were who placed salaried staff in union positions during the strike assumed from this that she could reliably file things in alphabetical order, and that she knew how to count beyond ten without taking her shoes and socks off.) She was, in all aspects of her work and life, a very good egg, and she and I remained firm friends for the twenty years we worked together.

Once I got to know her, I realized that Marian, who could be a bit prickly and off-putting around strangers, had a quiet and rather mordant wit. A month or two after the strike ended, she and I were struggling through a Pagemaker upgrade together, and she remarked to me that more than anything else, her experiences during the strike had caused her to lose her fear of death. “Oh, and why is that?” I asked.

“Well,” she said. “I’ve always figured that after I died, I’d be sent straight to Hell, and that was pretty frightening. But the thought of being in Hell doesn’t scare me anymore. Not after I’ve been in Medical Records.”

C.S. Lewis devotes an entire chapter in The Problem of Pain to the nature and meaning of Hell, and why the Christian doctrine of hell is just and moral. His concept of how Hell works is quite different from that so flippantly expressed by my friend Marian. (Although Marian’s view of the matter is not uncommon–that Hell is a place, similar in lots of ways to other human places–just more horrible, rather like Medical Records in fact–into which one is consigned by an all-powerful Deity, after having lived a unChristian and unrepentant life. Consignment to Hell, many believe, is something that God does to one, after one has shown oneself unworthy of Heaven.)

Lewis believes (I think) that consignment to Hell is something one does to oneself through one’s choices in life, a result of one’s free will, and of what he calls “successful rebellion” against God. In his spare, elegant prose, he makes the case that Hell is nothing like a hellish and perverse mirror of human life on earth, full of screaming and tortured people, because there is nothing remotely human about it at all. People who end up in Hell are there, he believes, because they have turned away from both their own humanity and that of others. (I think Lewis is defying any notion that “Hell is other people,” and explicitly saying that Hell is the absence of other people and humanity in one’s life. Because by rejecting humanity, one rejects God.) Such people have made themselves inhuman outcasts, and they have chosen Hell for themselves. God’s part in this process and its outcome, Lewis believes, ends when He gives us the freedom to reject Him, and to condemn ourselves to everlasting Hell. (Lewis also has a fascinating bit of discourse on the time-space continuum and the physical world, at this point in his story).

This is a portion of what he says:

I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside . . . they enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved: just as the blessed, forever submitting to obedience, become through all eternity more and more free.

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: ‘What are you asking God to do?’ To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.

God is comfortable enough with his own omniscience that He empowers us to make our choice, without His interference. And we do. And the chips, as they say, fall where they may.

I first read parts of The Problem of Pain when I was in college, and, more than anything else, the phrase “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside,” has stuck with me. I find it to be such a powerful metaphor, not only for those of us (and Lewis makes it clear it might apply to any of us) who intransigently reject God and our own humanity, and who are determinedly condemning ourselves to eternal damnation, but also as an object lesson for some of the lesser trials and tribulations of my own daily life. There have been times (more than I can count; probably not more than Marian could count), that I’ve made myself thoroughly miserable trying to solve the unsolvable or fix the unfixable, or when I’ve found myself alone with destructive and hellish thoughts whirling around inside my head, as if in a maze with no exit. That’s when it’s helpful to remind myself that I do have a choice. That no useful purpose is served by making myself miserable. That I might be making things worse for myself by trying to handle everything on my own. That there are other people in the world. That perhaps I should, metaphorically, open a door inside my head and let some light in. That I might, if I’m feeling especially brave, try sticking my head through it (a clever trick that would be), and having a look round outside to see if there is anyone close by, made in the image of God, who might offer me a hand. Amazingly, there almost always is someone. Equally amazingly, when I do that, when I grab hold of that hand, when I reconnect with humanity, mine and someone else’s, I almost always feel better, and my problems very often become much more bearable. And I exit the temporary hell I made for myself.

In every instance, small or large, it starts with a choice. And if I make what I think is the right choice, the human choice, it gets easier from there. At least, I think so. What do you think? Do you agree with Lewis? Or do you believe in, or approach the matter, differently?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Notice, rather, that in Mark and Luke Jesus leaves the listener to ponder the conclusion that would follow from the two premises that Jesus is good and that only G-d is good. In Matthew he does precisely the same.

    HeavyWater:

    But if one allows each gospel writer his own “voice,” one could conclude that they did not subscribe to the same theology with respect to Jesus, soteriology (salvation theory) and other issues.

    An interesting conclusion. What on earth are your premises for it?

    I think if one reads the four gospels without assuming that they are all supporting the same theology, one can see theological differences between them.

    I’ve never seen the difference, and I’ve been studying the texts my whole life.

    You might say that I’ve been assuming they support the same theology all the time.  That’s true; I have.

    But I’ve also been examining the evidence the whole time.

    If I understand you rightly, you think there is some textual evidence that the Gospels support different theologies; why don’t you cite this evidence?  (Or, if you think you already have, why don’t you respond to my rebuttals?)

    • #31
  2. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    I realize that if one starts with the Nicene creed and works back from there, the four gospels would appear to be in perfect alignment. But the Nicene creed appears quite a bit after the gospels were written.

    So what?  The notes on Aristotle I give my students are longer still after Aristotle, and my students are well advised to use them in interpreting Aristotle.

    One reason is that I’m a pretty reliable source for that sort of thing.

    better reason is that if they take my commentary on Aristotle and then study Aristotle’s Nichomanean Ethics directly, they will find that my analysis fits the text magnificently.

    Thus with the Creed.  Who cares if it’s a few centuries after the NT was written?  It fits the text magnificently.  Alternative interpretations don’t fit.

    • #32
  3. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Augie: Differing *emphases*/facets of the same theology (for different readers): That “Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”, yes?

    • #33
  4. She Member
    She
    @She

    What does anyone think about Lewis’s assertion that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside?”

    • #34
  5. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    She (View Comment):

    What does anyone think about Lewis’s assertion that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside?”

    If one is “surprised by joy”, as Lewis was, and finally able to unlock the door of his own inner hell (probably up the corridor a bit from Gilbert Keith Chesterton) then, yes, indeed, they are.  One may, however, have to contend with the existence of someones/somethings putting their weight against the outside of the door for all they’re worth…

    • #35
  6. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Nanda Panjandrum (View Comment):

    Augie: Differing *emphases*/facets of the same theology (for different readers): That “Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”, yes?

    Yes.

    • #36
  7. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    She (View Comment):

    What does anyone think about Lewis’s assertion that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside?”

    It’s a great line.

    (That’s all I got.)

    • #37
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Is God really going to be such a brute to imperfect human beings such as these? If so, again, why worship a being like that?

    Why not?

    If it’s all about minimizing my own pain and suffering, sure. I would worship that God.

    But don’t we admire people who refuse to support immoral leadership, even when the immoral leader holds the whip hand?

    Does an immoral act become moral just because someone with power says it’s moral?

    On what basis can you call an act immoral when there is no God? The only basis I’m aware of is a utilitarian one: what doesn’t work and what doesn’t keep your society going.  So on that basis, minimizing your own pain and suffering by worshiping a brutish god isn’t immoral, or at least isn’t necessarily immoral. Now you may object that I’m leaving out the bigger picture of what’s good for the larger society. Well, where do you want to draw the line? Drawing it around your own genotype is as arbitrary a place to draw that line, and as good a place to draw that line, as anything else. And you can probably figure out the rest for yourself. 

     

    • #38
  9. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    She:

    Consignment to Hell, many believe, is something that God does to one, after one has shown oneself unworthy of Heaven.)

    Lewis believes (I think) that consignment to Hell is something one does to oneself through one’s choices in life, a result of one’s free will, and of what he calls “successful rebellion” against God.

    Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive.  If I know the consequences of my thoughts, words, deeds are eternal punishment and I do them anyway, well,  you asked for it, you got it…Hell.

    Haven’t read Problem of Pain, but it sounds like Lewis is saying that the person in hell got what he wanted.  If the idea is that, once consigned to the hell of eternity one can get out, well, in a pig’s eye!

     

    • #39
  10. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    She:

    Consignment to Hell, many believe, is something that God does to one, after one has shown oneself unworthy of Heaven.)

    Lewis believes (I think) that consignment to Hell is something one does to oneself through one’s choices in life, a result of one’s free will, and of what he calls “successful rebellion” against God.

    Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. If I know the consequences of my thoughts, words, deeds are eternal punishment and I do them anyway, well, you asked for it, you got it…Hell.

    Haven’t read Problem of Pain, but it sounds like Lewis is saying that the person in hell got what he wanted. If the idea is that, once consigned to the hell of eternity one can get out, well, in a pig’s eye!

    Lewis should be read altogether when possible.

    In The Great Divorce, I think the ghosts who willingly choose to reject what makes them happy are the right sort of illustration of this notion.

    It’s like the mice said to Arthur Dent in the Disney Hithchhiker’s Guide: “We don’t want to be happy.  We want to be famous!”

    • #40
  11. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    She:

    Consignment to Hell, many believe, is something that God does to one, after one has shown oneself unworthy of Heaven.)

    Lewis believes (I think) that consignment to Hell is something one does to oneself through one’s choices in life, a result of one’s free will, and of what he calls “successful rebellion” against God.

    Those two thoughts are not mutually exclusive. If I know the consequences of my thoughts, words, deeds are eternal punishment and I do them anyway, well, you asked for it, you got it…Hell.

    Haven’t read Problem of Pain, but it sounds like Lewis is saying that the person in hell got what he wanted. If the idea is that, once consigned to the hell of eternity one can get out, well, in a pig’s eye!

    Lewis never called himself a theologian; he wrote about his own understanding, his own walk.  It’s something that all of us as believers do…We know the What of the Scriptures; we know Who Christ is; as we grow in faith, hope and love, we discover the Why and the How that is unique to us…

    Lewis’s thinking out loud in ink in The Problem of Pain, seems more a meditation on the everyday consequences of the Fall of our First Parents: pain of body and psyche, unease of spirit – than of the locus of one’s eternal destiny. The professor of English/veteran of WWI/citizen of England during WWII/grieving widower knew the territory well and shared his map with others.

    • #41
  12. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Is God really going to be such a brute to imperfect human beings such as these? If so, again, why worship a being like that?

    Why not?

    If it’s all about minimizing my own pain and suffering, sure. I would worship that God.

    But don’t we admire people who refuse to support immoral leadership, even when the immoral leader holds the whip hand?

    Does an immoral act become moral just because someone with power says it’s moral?

    On what basis can you call an act immoral when there is no God? The only basis I’m aware of is a utilitarian one: what doesn’t work and what doesn’t keep your society going.

    It all depends on how one defines morality in the abstract.

    I think that many people instinctively define morality in terms of what will maximize human (and perhaps) animal well being.

    When people say, “Slavery is immoral,” they say this because they see slavery has reducing human well being.  This doesn’t mean that there are no moral questions where people won’t disagree on what actions will or won’t maximize human well being.

    I don’t think the existence of God makes morality easier for human beings to determine.

    Just because God is, in theory, “in charge,” does not mean that God is moral just as someone who is “in charge” of a country is not necessarily moral.

    God could be a being that enjoys seeing human beings suffer.  Thus, we have earthquakes, mudslides, tornados, small pox and cancer.

    Ever wonder why two year old children have cancer?  Did God want the word to be this way?  It takes human beings to provide treatment for the two year old child who has cancer.  Maybe human beings are more moral than God, assuming God exists?

    • #42
  13. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But we all know of situations where people have made claims of the miraculous and our general response was one of skepticism.

    . . .

    So, I would argue that if you die and God asks you why you didn’t believe Mohammed (Islam) or Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or some other so-called prophet or savior, you could genuinely say to God,

    “God, you gave me a skeptical brain. I applied my skeptical brain to the questions posed to me and I did the best I could.”

    So what? Epistemic parity matters: Treat like claims as like, treat like evidence as like, and employ consistent standards.

    We all know Socrates died in Athens from drinking hemlock after being condemned by the Athenian jury. We know that by historical evidence that satisfies the criteria for good historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus the Messiah satisfies the same criteria, only much, much better than the evidence for Socrates.

    But if one is not someone who has spent a lot of time studying ancient history, one might have a difficult time determining, with 100 percent certainty, whether Socrates really did die from drinking hemlock or whether this was just a story written by someone that got told and retold.  

    Similarly for Jesus.  One might at least admit of the possibility that stories about Jesus were told, orally.   At first these stories were entirely factual.  But later some legends became attached to these stories. 

    So, while the gospel of Mark does not contain any story about a virgin birth, Matthew and Luke do.  But Matthew and Luke contain two contrasting virgin birth stories that are difficult (though not impossible) to reconcile.  This could reasonably be used as evidence that many of the claims in the gospels are not historically accurate.  

    This is why I mentioned Joseph Smith, Mohammed and the Elephant Milk Miracle of 1995.  Are we obligated to believe these stories just because these stories have been believed by many people?  I would say no.  No reasonable God would execute severe punishment for a person’s failure to figure out  which story was true and which false. 

     

     

    • #43
  14. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But if one allows each gospel writer his own “voice,” one could conclude that they did not subscribe to the same theology with respect to Jesus, soteriology (salvation theory) and other issues.

    An interesting conclusion. What on earth are your premises for it?

    I don’t understand your question.  

    One starts from the premise that each gospel writer is writing a story about Jesus.  There description of Jesus might or might not be accurate and true.  That’s my premise.  

     

    • #44
  15. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But we all know of situations where people have made claims of the miraculous and our general response was one of skepticism.

    . . .

    So, I would argue that if you die and God asks you why you didn’t believe Mohammed (Islam) or Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or some other so-called prophet or savior, you could genuinely say to God,

    “God, you gave me a skeptical brain. I applied my skeptical brain to the questions posed to me and I did the best I could.”

    So what? Epistemic parity matters: Treat like claims as like, treat like evidence as like, and employ consistent standards.

    We all know Socrates died in Athens from drinking hemlock after being condemned by the Athenian jury. We know that by historical evidence that satisfies the criteria for good historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus the Messiah satisfies the same criteria, only much, much better than the evidence for Socrates.

    But if one is not someone who has spent a lot of time studying ancient history, one might have a difficult time determining, with 100 percent certainty, whether Socrates really did die from drinking hemlock or whether this was just a story written by someone that got told and retold.

    Of course.  Historical testimony by nature is a probabilistic form of evidence, and subject to the possibility of error–even for professional historians.

    Similarly for Jesus. One might at least admit of the possibility that stories about Jesus were told, orally. At first these stories were entirely factual. But later some legends became attached to these stories.

    Of course.  As far as the historical evidence alone goes, this is a possibility.

    So, while the gospel of Mark does not contain any story about a virgin birth, Matthew and Luke do. But Matthew and Luke contain two contrasting virgin birth stories that are difficult (though not impossible) to reconcile. This could reasonably be used as evidence that many of the claims in the gospels are not historically accurate.

    It could be, if indeed there was any difficulty in reconciling them.  There is no such difficulty, however.

    I suppose you think there is; I’d be happy to look at your reasons.

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But if one allows each gospel writer his own “voice,” one could conclude that they did not subscribe to the same theology with respect to Jesus, soteriology (salvation theory) and other issues.

    An interesting conclusion. What on earth are your premises for it?

    I don’t understand your question.

    One starts from the premise that each gospel writer is writing a story about Jesus. There description of Jesus might or might not be accurate and true. That’s my premise.

    Ok, great.

    Given that starting point, where on earth is your evidence that the Gospel writers have conflicting theologies?

    • #45
  16. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    But we all know of situations where people have made claims of the miraculous

    Is God really going to burn your limbs for all eternity? If so, why would you worship such a moral monster?

    What about someone who isn’t very smart and isn’t very capable of separating false claims from true claims? Is God really going to burn this person for an infinite period of time because he has a low level of intellectual ability or was born into a family where the “wrong” religion was taught and the person died young in a mudslide?

    Is God really going to be such a brute to imperfect human beings such as these? If so, again, why worship a being like that?

    You are confusing several issues here. God damns no one. We damn ourselves and God’s every effort is in saving us from our own cruelty, selfishness, murderous hatred, degrading lust, and so forth. Of course the kid who died in the mudslide and the Chinese peasant who intuited that there was some person behind “The Way” and died before missionaries reached his village is covered by the Atonement. Not a problem. The Judge of all the Earth will deal rightly according to both justice and mercy.

    And on a different level, I have to say that the doctrine of Hell is quite comforting in the totality of its justice. It means that no unrepentant murderer, torturer or rapist ever gets away with it ultimately. Christians can and do argue about whether the Bible teaches eternal death following some finite punishment or eternal conscious torment, but whatever is just will be done. 

    As for claims of the miraculous, of course we test them. That is one reason among many why one should doubt Islam. The supposed miracle was witnessed by no one except Mohammed. The miracles reported of Jesus all had public witnesses- at least five in every instance,  taking the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter into account. And such accounts today should be tested. If one comes from the Benny Hinn circle, I am automatically skeptical. If it comes from Bill Johnson, Jean-Luc Trachsel or someone else I  know either professionally or personally and is backed up with eyewitness testimony and medical records, I trust it.

    • #46
  17. Hartmann von Aue Member
    Hartmann von Aue
    @HartmannvonAue

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    She (View Comment):

    What does anyone think about Lewis’s assertion that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside?”

    It’s a great line.

    (That’s all I got.)

    A couple of things: If one rejects God, who is perfectly holy, perfectly good, perfectly just  and perfectly merciful in this life where one never experiences Him in his fullness, it is only rational to think that being confronted with God directly and personally would lead to more self-justification, more lies about one’s own moral adequacy and attempts to deny one’s own personal evils, whatever they are in each case (Frank the rapist, Jim the murderer and so on). That is, shutting one’s self off from the source of all good would become permanent at some point, “the doors locked on the inside”.

    And that Jesus always is the key. To state it simply: All the (sufficiently) depraved human being has to do is answer the knock at the door and the door evaporates at Jesus’ touch.    

    • #47
  18. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Hartmann von Aue (View Comment):

    You are confusing several issues here. God damns no one. We damn ourselves and God’s every effort is in saving us from our own cruelty, selfishness, murderous hatred, degrading lust, and so forth. Of course the kid who died in the mudslide and the Chinese peasant who intuited that there was some person behind “The Way” and died before missionaries reached his village is covered by the Atonement. Not a problem. The Judge of all the Earth will deal rightly according to both justice and mercy.

    Not that Heaven / Tian / 天 is behind the Dao in Confucius as I understand him, but it does seem to refer to a personal god with a plan whose decrees matter and who cares about man.

    I want to meet Confucius in heaven.  I really do.  Even more than Socrates, I think.  At least I can be sure of Boethius and Lewis.

    • #48
  19. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    When people say, “Slavery is immoral,” they say this because they see slavery has reducing human well being. This doesn’t mean that there are no moral questions where people won’t disagree on what actions will or won’t maximize human well being.

    Some people see it as increasing human well being. And some people see it as increasing human well being, but wrong anyway. 

    I still don’t think we’ve got to the bottom of why you don’t want to worship a brutal god.  What if the brutality increases human well being at some level?  Maybe not your well being, but humans in general, over the long term.  Maybe not their happiness, but their survivability as a species.   (I don’t think you can define human well-being without a) inserting a purposeful god in your evaluation, or b) going full nihilism. You can try, but you’re going to go in circles like you’re doing now.) 

     

    • #49
  20. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    But we all know of situations where people have made claims of the miraculous and our general response was one of skepticism.

    . . .

    So, I would argue that if you die and God asks you why you didn’t believe Mohammed (Islam) or Joseph Smith (Mormonism) or some other so-called prophet or savior, you could genuinely say to God,

    “God, you gave me a skeptical brain. I applied my skeptical brain to the questions posed to me and I did the best I could.”

    So what? Epistemic parity matters: Treat like claims as like, treat like evidence as like, and employ consistent standards.

    We all know Socrates died in Athens from drinking hemlock after being condemned by the Athenian jury. We know that by historical evidence that satisfies the criteria for good historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus the Messiah satisfies the same criteria, only much, much better than the evidence for Socrates.

    But if one is not someone who has spent a lot of time studying ancient history, one might have a difficult time determining, with 100 percent certainty, whether Socrates really did die from drinking hemlock or whether this was just a story written by someone that got told and retold.

    Similarly for Jesus. One might at least admit of the possibility that stories about Jesus were told, orally. At first these stories were entirely factual. But later some legends became attached to these stories.

    So, while the gospel of Mark does not contain any story about a virgin birth, Matthew and Luke do. But Matthew and Luke contain two contrasting virgin birth stories that are difficult (though not impossible) to reconcile. This could reasonably be used as evidence that many of the claims in the gospels are not historically accurate.

    This is why I mentioned Joseph Smith, Mohammed and the Elephant Milk Miracle of 1995. Are we obligated to believe these stories just because these stories have been believed by many people? I would say no. No reasonable God would execute severe punishment for a person’s failure to figure out which story was true and which false.

    “Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.” – Acts 11:18

     “God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” – 2 Tim 2:25

     

    “may the Lord give you understanding in all things.” – 2 Tim 2:7

    • #50
  21. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    When people say, “Slavery is immoral,” they say this because they see slavery has reducing human well being. This doesn’t mean that there are no moral questions where people won’t disagree on what actions will or won’t maximize human well being.

    Some people see it as increasing human well being. And some people see it as increasing human well being, but wrong anyway.

    I still don’t think we’ve got to the bottom of why you don’t want to worship a brutal god. What if the brutality increases human well being at some level? Maybe not your well being, but humans in general, over the long term. Maybe not their happiness, but their survivability as a species. (I don’t think you can define human well-being without a) inserting a purposeful god in your evaluation, or b) going full nihilism. You can try, but you’re going to go in circles like you’re doing now.)

    It seems like common sense that you don’t sign up to worship an evil deity.  What is so controversial about that?

    Certainly when it comes to Islam you agree, right?  You wouldn’t become a Muslim and join the 9-11 hijackers, right?

    In other words, your morality is more important than simply worshipping God and saying, “Yes, God.  I’ll do it.”

    • #51
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    It seems like common sense that you don’t sign up to worship an evil deity. What is so controversial about that?

    Certainly when it comes to Islam you agree, right? You wouldn’t become a Muslim and join the 9-11 hijackers, right?

    In other words, your morality is more important than simply worshipping God and saying, “Yes, God. I’ll do it.”

    It seems like common sense because you’re implicitly accepting some of the premises that you’re rejecting. To go with common sense, it’s best not to think about these contradictions.

    So, yes, for me there is more to it than just saying, “Yes, God, I’ll do it.”  But it’s not less than that, either. 

    • #52
  23. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    It seems like common sense that you don’t sign up to worship an evil deity. What is so controversial about that?

    Certainly when it comes to Islam you agree, right? You wouldn’t become a Muslim and join the 9-11 hijackers, right?

    In other words, your morality is more important than simply worshipping God and saying, “Yes, God. I’ll do it.”

    It seems like common sense because you’re implicitly accepting some of the premises that you’re rejecting. To go with common sense, it’s best not to think about these contradictions.

    So, yes, for me there is more to it than just saying, “Yes, God, I’ll do it.” But it’s not less than that, either.

    Do you accept the Koran as the word of God?  Why or why not?

     

    • #53
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Do you accept the Koran as the word of God? Why or why not?

    Far be it from me to rule out the possibility of God speaking to me through the Koran. 

    By the way, if you’re going to weasel your way out of difficult questions, so can I. 

    • #54
  25. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Do you accept the Koran as the word of God? Why or why not?

    Far be it from me to rule out the possibility of God speaking to me through the Koran.

    By the way, if you’re going to weasel your way out of difficult questions, so can I.

    I thought you two were talking about metaethics–about whether G-d’s commands are a sufficient justification for something being right.

    • #55
  26. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Do you accept the Koran as the word of God? Why or why not?

    Far be it from me to rule out the possibility of God speaking to me through the Koran.

    By the way, if you’re going to weasel your way out of difficult questions, so can I.

    I have answered your questions.  You just don’t like my answers.

    • #56
  27. HeavyWater Inactive
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    I plan on writing a separate post tomorrow titled, “A Conversation about the Bible.”

    • #57
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):
    Do you accept the Koran as the word of God? Why or why not?

    Far be it from me to rule out the possibility of God speaking to me through the Koran.

    By the way, if you’re going to weasel your way out of difficult questions, so can I.

    I have answered your questions. You just don’t like my answers.

    If those answers are good enough for you, I have no idea what else there is to talk about.  

    • #58
  29. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    If those answers are good enough for you, I have no idea what else there is to talk about.

    Lay-folks as sharers/popularizers/explainers of the basics of faith in the way that Lewis was…

    What believers have in common…

    Whether we’ve had moments of having our faith life/worldview broken open/expanded, as Lewis had…

    ???

    :-) 

    • #59
  30. SkipSul Inactive
    SkipSul
    @skipsul

    She (View Comment):

    What does anyone think about Lewis’s assertion that “the doors of Hell are locked on the inside?”

    Lewis illustrated this beautifully at the end of The Last Battle with the stubborn dwarves.  They were on the winning side.  They survived.  They were in paradise!  And yet it was still a dirty old barn to them because they would not be disabused of their stubborn pride and adamant belief that Aslan would only return on their terms.  They really were in a Hell of their own making.

    There is much conjecture within Orthodox Christianity over the afterlife.  Some insist on there being an actual hell reserved for the unrepentant, others say that no, any such lake of fire or whatnot is only for the demons.  But perhaps one of the most enduring visions is this:  Heaven and Hell are ultimately only ever going to be states of one’s own being in its own relationship to the Almighty.  That is to say, we will all abide in the light of His glory and presence, and whether that is an eternal joy or an eternal burning torment will be on whether we have come to love Him, or not.  As one priest I know puts it “We’re all going to live forever.  But it’s a question of whether you’ll enjoy it or not.”

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.