Sins as Crimes

Imagine you have a son mid-puberty. He appears to grow another inch every day, but his vocal cords are struggling to keep up with the man he is becoming. You’ve had the “birds and bees” talk, but whatever knowledge or values you managed to impart were filtered through the teenage mind. One day the police come to your door with a warrant for your son’s arrest. They take him into custody and make his bedroom a crime scene. You don’t get a full explanation until you follow the police cruiser to the station. Internet traffic monitoring provided just cause to make the boy a suspect for multiple counts of pornography viewing. Their CSI team then did a blacklight sweep and discovered suspiciously placed sperm discharges. Your son goes to court and is found guilty of both consuming pornography and masturbation, both serious felonies. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole.

In this alternate reality, not only are watching porn and beating off crimes, they carry the same penalty as the crimes of rape and murder. Replace the word “crime” with “sin” and “police” with “God” and this alternate reality mirrors the divine judgement as described by many religious denominations. Catholicism, for example, considers porn, masturbation, rape and murder interchangeable as mortal sins--meaning that if any of these go unrepented God will send you to hell.

My question to theists is this: would you be comfortable with your government judging crimes the same as you believe God judges sin? I doubt anyone could truthfully answer “yes,” which implies that they’d be fine with their son being hauled away in the above scenario. If I were to guess, I’d say I won’t get many theists answering this question at all. To make this easier, allow me to address what I suspect will be their two main issues with the hypothetical.

“God judges, man should not.” Okay, then I assume you are comfortable with revoking all laws of man. From now on no earthly repercussions for murderers and rapists, let God sort them out. Not ideal? Okay, moving on.

“God sacrificed his only Son to save us from the punishment we deserve, providing we repent and/or accept Jesus as our Savior.” Applying this to our analogy, anyone convicted of a crime, be it masturbation or murder one, will be let free as soon as they admit to the crime and ask forgiveness. This will free up the prisons and put everyone at risk by, again, effectively taking away earthly consequences. I understand that for most religions the asking for forgiveness is ideally sincere and paired with an honest attempt to never sin again, but theists must also admit that the attempt nearly always fails and cite our sinful (or in this case criminal) nature as the cause. Same applies here. A stricter reading of this issue would make the criminal in question need to beg forgiveness from the State, worship either the arresting officer or the President of the State, and act in service of the State until they die in order to escape the sentence of life in prison. God, if he exists in any capacity similar to the beliefs of Abrahamic religions, is no more just or merciful or loving than a totalitarian government with 24/7 surveillance and absolute enforcement. Knowing that I once thought otherwise is a testament to the power of indoctrination.

Tweet Round-up

When someone says "It's against my religion," I hear "It's against my superstition."

The Catholic Church is completely infallible to those who own bibles and not history books.

Most women would never spend money at a business with the hiring policies of the Church, yet they often give when the basket comes around. I don't get it.

When met with an apologetic claim, I ask "why do you think that?" More often than not, it is because they were told to.

The more debates I have with Christians, the more sure I am that they are wrong. I always think that I couldn't be more sure.

"Moral perfection" doesn't equal mass killings in my book, just in the holy book.

Apologists have a lot of certain knowledge about God's nature, power & motivation until a hard question is asked. Then its all mysterious.

I like to think the Arthur Fonzarelli was an aaaaaatheist.

Jesus preaching the Golden Rule is his validation of subjective morality. What I want done to me may not be the same as what you want done to you.

Apologist when posed a yes or no question in which the answer would expose flaws in their argument: "Read this 200 page book for the answer." (Related: What kind of diabolical BS artist can give you the run-around for 200 pages?)

Calling Islam the religion of peace is like calling FOX News fair and balanced.

For more follow @deityshmeity

Would I Play By God's Rules If I Knew He Was Real?

If I could know that the Christian God exists, would I worship him? Let’s explore the angles.

Why I should not worship Jehovah:

Regardless of apologetic talking points, the God of the Bible is imperfect. He makes mistakes and he contradicts himself. Between creating a talking serpent that thwarts his own plan and feeling the need to sacrifice himself (or his son, depending on who you ask) to change his own rules of eternity, God has done little to inspire worship. I would also have to excuse divine choices that I fundamentally disagree with--like allowing anyone to suffer infinitely for finite sins. I imagine some of those suffering I even knew in life. Complying with God’s wishes and humbling myself to him would be like a German with freshly dead Jewish friends admitting allegiance to Hitler.

Why I should worship Jehovah:

While their commitment to extreme punishment for those they consider distasteful is on par, God and Hitler have some major differences. God forgives and shows mercy as long as you follow his strict criteria. I doubt Hitler would consistently allow Jews to live even if they all agreed to become Nazis. Also, unlike Hitler, we wouldn’t be here if not for God. The man upstairs also managed to impart some positive life lessons, so perhaps the Almighty deserves at least as much respect as my parents. More than this, the nummero uno reason why I am compelled to worship Jehovah is because I will go to hell if I don’t. Yes, heaven also factors in, but the stick is more compelling then the carrot in this case.

Weighing the options. I completely understand the anti-theists who call God evil, but I wouldn’t go that far. Yes, he kills humans, but I kill bugs. I eat cows and chicken and delicious, delicious pigs. I don’t consider myself evil so I would be hypocritical to call God evil. We are inferior to him in all respects (unless you include human-centric morality.) I can call God irresponsible, unfair, even cruel--but not evil. When it comes down to it, I would be completely unprincipled and play according to God’s rules, yet I think I would. I’m not proud of it. I am fully aware how that makes me a Nazi, but I’m also aware how it doesn’t. I like to think I would have sacrificed everything to fight Hitler even as a German under the pressure of death and threat to my family. I think I would because I could have rationalized that Hitler could be overthrown and any contribution to that cause is worth anything. I can’t rationalize that the Almighty can be overthrown. It’s right there in the name, all mighty. I would worship an erratic tyrant and try desperately to convince others to follow suit because no cost or benefit in our x number of years on earth compare to the forever after. To keep some scrap of dignity I would tell myself that one day in heaven I’ll be able to talk some sense into God...that won't happen. Mostly because Jehovah doesn’t fucking exist.

Music Shmusic: Jay-Z's Heaven

Usually rap has a lot of "praise the Lord" talk mixed in with lyrics promoting questionable morals. I was pleasantly surprised to hear a song with a more skeptical take from Jay-Z.

Listen to Jay=Z talk a little about the sony in this promo for his new album, which I happen to like a lot.
 

Grundy Disagrees #4

My latest disagreement spawned from a Two Catholic Men and a Blog post on the so-called "availability" of God and/or the Holy Spirit. I pointed out that the knowledge of the God's word is not universally available, rather it is asymmetrically available. Some people are born into areas where Catholicism hasn't spread or at least isn't mainstream, some people die before hearing about Jesus, and others are so indoctrinated into competing religions that a near insurmountable boundary is present. Basically, if the Catholic God exists, it is unfair for his word to come so easily to some and not at all to others. Further more, this God is unjust to judge symmetrically given the circumstance he put in place.

Joe, one of the two guys, disagreed.

Here are excerpts of the exchange:

Joe: We must do our part and God will provide the rest. We who are indwelt are called to bring God's love to the whole world. It is OUR fault if some do not hear of God when they are accessible to believers.

You put the fault on God who "makes it so much harder." Again, it is not God who does this. We who imagine and teach the competing worldview are to blame.

God is not a genie in the sky who is expected to wave a hand and fix our troubles. Part of our salvation comes from working to solve just these issues.

Lastly, God judges how God will. He has revealed to believers how he will judge, but God can always save who he will without consulting anyone. Maybe many will be saved in spite of their ignorance. We don't know.

You may say, "perhaps it is better for them to remain ignorant." Maybe. Maybe not. We do know God is just and fair. The question is then, "why bet on ignorance when sure knowledge is available?"

Me: You seem to be trying the justify the lack of availability from the perspective of the believer, but from the perspective of those who don't know about Jesus or have been conditioned to believe otherwise, it's surely not their fault they are in the situation they are in. That's what I'm saying, and it makes God, if he exists, neither just nor fair.

Joe: God does not reveal to us the ultimate fate of non-believer. He only reveals to us our responsibility towards them. Whatever their fate, we as believers are held responsible for our own actions (or non-action) towards them. 

As God is both just AND fair, the fact that someone is the situation they are in when it is not their fault would certainly work in their favor. You are certainly correct in pointing out that circumstances reduce an individual's culpability. 

The Catholic Church has NEVER said that anyone is in Hell. Not even Judas. We hope that Hell is empty. 

Do you see the difference?

Me: I see the difference in regards to hell, but denying some heaven while giving others that reward when asymmetrical circumstances make it so much harder for some to be aware and to believe is the definition of unfair. So, I'll ask you the same question I asked Ben: Do non-Christians go to heaven? Can they?

If the answer is no, God is unfair. If you don't know, then the fairness of God is also unknown and I don't think availability is the best topic to blog about.

Joe: Would you be considered unfair to give a gift to someone but not to another? I would think you would say no.

In the same way, human life is given as gift. If you were in the position of God to create matter from nothing and then bring a non-living being to life, say a clay figure, (see my Clay Man post) you would be perfectly in your rights to do whatever you wish with that Clay figure. You can take away its life without moral impact. It's YOUR stuff. You gave it life and can take it away again.

This is a very hard teaching to accept (as clay men). If you do not accept it, then we have different ideas as to what's "fair" and I'd beware of people who ask you for money since you'd be unfair or unjust not to give money to each and every person who asks.

If God gives life (and eternal life) as gift, it's not mysterious, but it IS up to him. If he wants to explain some of his rationale to us so we can have a chance of obtaining it, even THAT is gift. We are fortunate to listen to it!

Me: I don't accept that teaching and neither do you. Take a child who wouldn't be alive without you. According to this teaching, it is perfectly acceptable for you and your mate to abort the fetus, after all, it's YOUR stuff. I know you don't feel this way because I see you are pro-life. Further, once the kid is born anything from incestual pedophilia to murder one is fine when committed by the parent, right?

Wrong. You and I are both right in not accepting this teaching.

It goes on. Check the comments or weigh in yourself here.

Boycotting Boycotts

Consider the following boycott scenarios.

• I boycott my local Catholic church for covering up priest pedophiles. I didn’t previously go to church nor did I contribute to their collections. It doesn’t hurt me, but neither does it hurt the church.
• I boycott Chick-Fil-A for their CEO’s stance on gays and for their contributions to like-minded organizations. I really like Chick-Fil-A and spent money at their restaurants on a weekly basis. It hurts the company in losing one of their regular customers, but it also hurts me in that I am losing a favorite lunch spot.

The first boycott is not effective while the second is effective because an effective boycott must hurt both the boycotter and the boycottee. From the point of view of the boycotter, the choice to punish a brand for a distasteful policy is a desirable statement that outweighs the undesirable personal consequence. However, when a potential boycott is the hardest to make, and necessarily the most effective, the potential boycotter may opt out of boycotting. In these cases, I’ve thought about another option.

When Ender’s Game comes out in theaters, I will buy a ticket. I’m a big enough fan of the source material that I obviously hope it’s good, but even if it’s bad I’ll be curious to see just how bad it is. Since the author, Orson Scott Card, is a vocal Mormon with ideas and contributions of which I don’t agree, I have some desire to boycott it, just the principle. I recognize that in this case I could pirate Ender’s Game so that Card doesn’t get to put my good money to bad use. At the same time, I feel he deserves to be paid for work that I recognize has value. This leads me to my boycott alternative: I will enjoy a night at the movies and then contributing the ticket price to an organization that works toward goals opposite that of Card’s charities. Instead of this boycott hurting me recreationally, it will only hurt me financially because I will basically be paying twice the ticket price in “protest” of Card’s views.

Card’s primary boycott-worthy view in my opinion is being against gay marriage, so I will likely give to a LGBT charity. In the end, I think this will be more effective than a traditional boycott on a personal level since very little of the cost of my ticket will go to Card’s bank account and again only a fraction of that will go to his causes while the entirety of my extra nine bucks will go against his cause. On a public level, it isn’t quite as effective because I won’t be participating in the inevitable organized boycott of the movie which can only be measured as a factor in the movie’s failure (which I feel is unfair because it punishes everyone else involved in the movie in addition to Card.) In the end, every boycott is a personal boycott and this option is the best for me and might work for you whether you apply it to Ender’s Game, Chick-Fil-A or whatever.

Additional boycott tip: If you do decide to boycott something, it probably won’t be noticeable unless it is part of a large-scale and successfully organized boycott. To make your personal boycott efforts noticable, write to the business or brand you are boycotting and tell them why you are doing it. If you were previously a regular customer, be sure to say so. I’ve done this before with advertisers of particularly harmful radio hosts and heard back from some of the companies. Whether they do anything about it or not, they’ll at least know, and that matters.

No Interpersonal Revelations