h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That is, Sons of Justin The Preacher.

(I was trying to think of a good subject, and it leapt to mind that a play on words would be funny, and an ironic one would be even funnier.)

It seems we have a couple of new born-again Christians on board (pun not intended). I extend my welcome, and my curiosity.

Most of us will remember Justin the Preacher—who could forget him?—and some might remember that he drove me crazy like nothing else. Well, with GSD apparently aiming to fill the Justin-shaped hole in our lives (another dreadful, ironic pun), a question has resurfaced—a question which I have been asking myself for a long time.

What is the point?

There are several layers to this apparently vague question.

First, let's examine the theology. According to the few born-again Christians we have hosted, humanity is split sharply into two groups: the saved, and the unsaved.

Everyone is, to start with, unsaved. The unsaved are innately sinful, and all of their good works are loathsome to God, because nothing they do is untainted by their wickedness and sin. They are destined to go to Hell, a place of such ingenious construction that each and every one of its inhabitants will endure eternal, agonising, unremitting torment. There are no allowances for age, actions, circumstances or delusion; the denizens of Hell include babies and young children, saints, individuals from remote tribal groups who have no means of knowing of the Gospel, devout followers of other religions, murdered gay people (as Fred Phelps proclaims with glee) and the mentally ill, as well as individuals who fit the traditional description of "evil".

In stark contrast, the followers of Christ—those who are saved—are forgiven of all their sins and given God's grace, which they can never lose. Any misdeeds they commit, they can repent for, and after a brief time to amend or atone for them they head for Heaven, a paradisiacal residence of unending delight and happiness. Again, this is without respect for their circumstances, ages or other aspects of their earthly life; Heaven's citizens feature repenting murderers and rapists, the wealthy and decadent, and many who are blessed richly in their lifetimes (accompanied, of course, by many who are archetypes of goodness, modesty and virtue).

The difference between the fates of the saved and the unsaved is as marked as the distinction of white from black; however, the reader might have noticed that there is apparently no discernable pattern or order to who might be saved or not (although all infants are destined to Hell by virtue of innate sinfulness—Justin the Preacher shared this with us). One might justifiably ask, how does one become saved? Well, according to the born-again Christian, this is solely up to the will of God.

Precisely: no amount of good deeds or intentions, righteous toil, prayerfulness, knowledge or repentance will suffice to become saved. One is saved entirely through God's choice, which is not random, but appears to be so because it is completely opaque to all but a select few. Those who are not saved can never find a way to become saved, and nothing they do to this end will ever be sufficient. The saved human's position is given by grace, not earned by works or sincerity.

There are some logical consequences to such a position. If there is no way to become saved through honest toil and desire, then no amount of hearing about the Gospel or one's position will make a difference. And, therefore, there's no reason for anyone to minister, to anyone, ever.

If this is so, why do the chosen few take pains to inform the unsaved minority that they are heading for Hell, and that there's no way to change this? Why do they go out of their way to minister to the unsaved? How can they expect the unsaved to accept God's Law when, by their own admission, it is impossible for them to understand or benefit from it?

What is the point?

Now, a few explanations have been posited. SoRB (good SoRBiquet—and, darn, another bad pun) presents a theory to explain why many Christians are extremely angry people, which could be extended to answer this question. He presents cognitive dissonance as the key: the maintainance of two mutually exclusive beliefs, which protects itself from challenge through irrational outpourings. Alternatively, Good_News—himself a born-again Christian—responds tartly that maybe they are goaded into them because people loudly proclaim that they are delusional or mentally deficient. In the same conversation, guilt was speculated as the mechanism for their inexplicable behavior. However, none of these were actually formulated to answer my question specifically, and can only be extended to do so by a contrivance which eventually amounts to, in general form: "they're just totally irrational". That wouldn't be a decent explanation, it would be a cop-out.

There are other factors I've identified as more specific candidates. Perhaps it's an ego-boost to believe that you alone know the Truth (note capital) and are destined for paradise, while almost everyone else is heading for damnation and calculated torture. Perhaps it's just looking for an opportunity to gloat, or share their superior knowledge, in the assurance that it will change nothing. Maybe it's active-victim behavior; knowing that they will only receive scorn and jeering in response, they post inflammatory comments, reinforcing their assurance that they are right, all else are wrong, and they are persecuted for their righteousness. It might be how they maintain the ingroup-outgroup divide—by convincing themselves that everyone outside of their group hates them, they are forced to look to their own select group of born-again Christians for love, which is an incredibly depressing scenario. That last possibility has actually brought me close to tears for some people, because it's such an unspeakably cruel and self-perpetuating conspiracy, of the kind seldom encountered outside of the most chilling, dystopic fantasies.

It could be that they do it solely because God commands Christians to be the "light on the hill" by preaching the Gospel. They don't want to save anyone or help anyone; they simply want to fulfil a Biblical fantasy which, so far as they are concerned, is otherwise a quite pointless activity. Or, possibly, they don't understand the fallacy, or don't realise that there's any contradiction in trying to recruit individuals to their cause when, by their own admission, no amount of learning or assistance will save anyone.

Feel free to comment if you I have misunderstood something, or if anyone has their own theories about why people bother to expound the sinfulness of people who apparently can neither comprehend nor change it either way.

- Jordan

Hi, Jordan, good to hear you again! Here I am, and here's my two cents worth (how does that smiley go, again?)

Justin, GSM and their ilk are Calvinists. They must thus be distinguished from ordinary born-again Christians, who might be best described as Arminians. In fact there is a discussion about the difference here. http://phpbb.sparrows.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258
This is a Christian board, where the like of Justin and GSM, have caused a lot of disruption - hence the lively discussion.
Most evangelical churches, Baptists included (and my own Salvation Army) say 'whosoever will may come' - in other words, as I believe most strenuously, GSM and his lot are completely, utterly and comprehensively wrong! It is a matter of choice. I can't stress that enough, when GSM and JtP say that man proposes but God disposes, they are distorting Scripture. *No one is excluded who wants to be saved*.
Here's one man's comment on that thread -
<<You're quite right, Pat. References to election and God's sovereign will in the NT notwithstanding, the whole tenor of the NT is that Christ died for all, and that all may accept salvation, but they don't have to. If it's all fixed in advance, from all eternity in fact, what's the point of preaching the gospel? I think the references to election are references to what God does to those whom God foreknows will respond. They still have real free choice, but since God knows in advance who they are, God confirms their choice and saves them. In other words, references to God's election of some for salvation are references to God acting on God's foreknowledge. Paul more or less says as much, somewhere or other. "Whom God knew, he also called; whom he called,...[etc., or something along those lines. Wish I knew the Bible better!]"
This was here http://phpbb.sparrows.org.uk/viewtopic.php?t=258&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=15
about halfway down, from a man called 'Abdiel'. (Roman Catholic, AFAIK).
So, you see that 90% of Protestants are Arminian not Calvinist, so SorB's comments about these people are irrelevant to the majority of Christians. The like of Grand Sam MacDonald don't go down too well on a Christian board either - their arrogant comdemnation of the rest of us is unacceptable.
Somehow the doctrine of purgatory (a strictly Catholic doctrine) seems to have go mixed into it - when you say "and after a brief time to amend or atone for them they head for Heaven" - as far as aI know, Calvinists believe hey, they're straight there!
It is a great pity (and discussed on Sparrows too) that the like of the very vocal Calvinists seem to have managed to convince non-Christians, that they represent the orthodox mainstream of Christianity, They don't, no way Jose!

_________________

Great I agrewe with your points., thats all I can say. I wont go critising as I am a Muslim and would end up getting in to one of them darn debates between born again Christians and my self over who is right or not. My view on things is this: Leave people be, i.e. you speak more volumes about your faith when you don't ram it down peoples throats and accuse them of being sinful and destined to hell. Only God can know where people are going to or not going to so how can we pass comment on rether you or anyone else is going to hell. People should respect other peoples faiths and not to mire muck and lies over other peoples faiths just because its not what you believe in. I am happy to answer questions about Islam and am more than happy in having intelligent conversations with people about it, I don't ram it down anyones throats though as people have the freedom to choose, and if they choose to be Muslim or Christian then they will seek out advice etc. That being said if I get a pushy Christian have a go at me about how I am going to hell and Jesus is the only way to salvation etc, like the ones I get in my e mails, then I do defend my self, which after a long debate always ends up with the christian guy leaving me alone.

Islam its self is a very missonary religion but one has to do it the right way, and I think thats the distinction. theres a right way and a wrong way. Knocking on peoples doors etc and accosting people on line etc is not the right way. The reason its not right is that your forcing your opinions on someone else and intruding on their privacy which is not the way a religous individual is supposed to act. The best missionary way is to ampliphy your faith by doing that which it instructs, i.e actually do what your supposed to do as a Muslim, Christian etc and behave like one. Through this conduct you set an example that others will notice, also when talking about your faith not to come over all self rightous and preachy as that shows contempt of other people beliefs, which is very rude and ignorant and so should be avoided.

We are living in a world where their are many faiths and people who choose not to believe, in stead of accusing them of going to hell and being evil, we should all try to understand one another and respect each others opinions.

Well thats my sorts on it.

A bit of subject sorry.

Adib

Hi Jordan

An excellent summary of the beliefs of the fruit & nutcases we get here from time to time. You do realise it earns you a one way ticket to hell and honorary membership of the Sulphur Outfall No4 Club?

Hi Della

I really wish that you were right and you could box these fellows up into a neat package and distance yourself from them, but you know you are being disingenuous.

I have found these so-called 'calvinists' in every christian congregation I have visited - and, horror of horrors, that includes The Salvation Army. Worse still they are often the people at the front leading the christian rituals of worship.

That aside you still believe that the likes of myself, Jez and Heathen Sceptic will be condemned to Hell. This is because we have rejected your God, we are active pagans. Our good deeds will avail us naught as we shall never beg forgiveness from a God who apparently infected us with Sin in the first place.

Remember that as you queue up for judgement.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\

<>
<> (Jordan)

Frankly, that is how it looks to me. As is - 'I'm saved and you're not! '

It certainly isn't teaching anything, which is what I always thought preaching was supposed to be about.


<> (Adib Qasim)

I agree with you that one can teach better by example. For example, you always come across as a thoughtful, intelligent and non-judgemental sort of person, someone secure in your belief and what it means to you. In this sense you show others who might think that all Muslims are extremist bomb-toting lunatics (to use an extreme example) that this is obviously not the case. To use a less extreme example, you also show that, in spite of believing that your God is the one and only true God for you, you accept and respect other people's beliefs (or non beliefs) and do not call them 'wrong'.


<> (Della)

Unless they happen to be homosexual, right?

I actually think that Math was being a bit hard on you by saying you cannot disassociate yourself from Christian fundamentalists, as you don't appear to be an extremist. But the main thing I see lacking in you is genuine Christian charity since, unlike Adib Qasim (for example), you do come across as being very judgemental. Curious that a Muslim shows more of so-called Christian charity than you do.

Not being religious myself I feel no need to defend any one particular god concept. I think all of them are quite valid in the sense that they provide people with a spiritual link, a sense of community, and in most cases also provide people with a good ethical base to live by. The Golden Rule - doing unto others, etc - seems to exist in most religions, and this truly is a rule that I feel all of us should live by.

Buddha is quoted as saying 'all ways are Buddha ways', which has to be the most open-minded and generous understanding I've ever heard about attaining spiritual enlightenment.

It doesn't matter how you get there, or which 'methods' you use, as long as you get there in the end.

I find the pagan gods interesting because they are not 'supernatural' gods - they actually live amongst the people who recognise them as, well, being there. Quite a different concept from triple-O gods who *are* supernatural beings who tend to take the rôle of 'father' (and usually quite a jealous, angry and judgemental one who is then supposed to be seen as loving as well).

I tend to believe that all these gods exist for each of us - that we all interpret god(s) in our own way. Which is why we created them.



az

Jordan, its good to here from you again,
even if it is one of the legnthyest things I've herd from you in a few months...

and my comment on this is probably referanced in scripture of most religions: only god can judge the wicked from the rightious

dont worry about JtP, he will get the same judgement as the rest of us, perhaps with a different outcome though

remember: Judge lest not ye be judged likewise - not an exact quote but whats a girl to do too much to look it up at the moment, I'd get butter on my scriptures....


Dr Anthea

Hi Anthea, what you just said reminds me of a hadith, a story told by the Prophet Muhammad, in which he said some thing on the lines of:

Their where to pious men talking out side a place of worship when a member of the community left the place of worship and went home. One of the pious men said to the other "You see him, he commits so much sin, he is destined to hell I don't know why he bothers to come to this place to worship when he always does wrong". On the day of judgement the man who always sinned was sent to heavon to the most highest parts, while the pious man who had critizied him went in to the lowest depths of hell as God gave the sinfull man the pious mans place in heavon because the pious man had judged someone else and passed sentance on a persons actions for the afterlife on what little he knows of that person.

Thats the basics of the story, I can not remember it exactly but basically the moral was that only God is allowed to say if someone is going to Hell or Heaven as only God knows everyones actions and everyones intentions and that it is sinfull for a human who does not know every think a person does or why they did it to judge others in such away.

Adib

thats a good story,
I think thats what i was trying to say but the story makes it much better,

I have respect for most other religions (exept these new age wicken lot... they just get on my nerves most of the time... and I dont beleve its an actual religion, just some teenagers messing around)

I respect most other religions because the ideas carried in there scriptures are so simaler to many others, I'm a mormon and I've never held someones religion against them or tryed to convert someone or pushed scripture to anyone. I've offered friends a book before but only so they could understand a little more, thats different to anything JtP did. I dont beleve that anyone is damned to a life or afterlife of misery because they dont beleve the same things that I do, because quite frankly who am I to say that it is not my ideas that are wrong instead of theres, none of us is as like god, none of us know how he thinks or what way he would rather be worshiped or even if he would be worshiped at all, hay the athiests could have it right...
the main consept of religion shouldnt be beleve as i do lest ye go to hell, it should be to keep to your own presepts and to live a rightious life by showing a little human kindness and decency to everyone.
shure I'm proud to be a latterday saint and happy i made that choice, but thats what it was a choice, and thats what everyone should have.


Dr Anthea

Matholwch, *I can and do* put these people in a box, and separate myself from them!

The point of difference is that they believe in what's called 'predestination to damnation'. I don't and most Christians don't. Besides, it's unscriptural. I stand by my assertion that they are a minority of a minority, and that I disagree vehemently with their views.
'Whosoever will may come', that's the nub of it. JtP and his ilk are comprehensively wrong.

<>

That is your choice. Unlike JtP and co., I don't say that you *have no* choice. If you know as much about Christian theology as you seem to, then you know that good deeds have nothing to do with it, as no one can ever be good enough. HS knows this, she has studied comprehensively.

As an Universalist, I believe that you and the other pagans will be given post-mortem opportunities to reconsider your choice, should you wish to do so.
If you don't - then you can't blame me!
Hell, whatever form it takes, simply means separation from God. You've chosen such separation. Hell is God ratifying your choice.

Forgive the shouting but this board gives no other means of emphasis.

I AM NOT A CALVINIST. I AM AN ARMINIAN. I BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

Hi Della

So you are an Arminian then? Fair enough. As far as I understand it from the works of John Wesley, et al, you differ from the Calvinists in five main ways:

1. Conditional Election: God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ, out of fallen and sinful mankind, those foreknown by Him who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Christ; but God leaves in sin those foreseen, who are incorrigible and unbelieving.

2. Universal Atonement: Christ's death was suffered on behalf of all men, but God elects for salvation only those who believe in Christ.

3. Free Will with Partial Depravity: Freedom of will is man's natural state, not a spiritual gift - and thus free will was not lost in the Fall, but cannot be exercised toward good apart from the grace of God. Grace works upon all men to influence them for good, but only those who freely choose to agree with grace by faith and repentance are given new spiritual power to make effectual the good they otherwise impotently intend. As John Wesley stated more forcefully, humans were in fact totally corrupted by original sin, but God's prevenient grace allowed free will to operate.

4. Resistible Grace: The grace of God works for good in all men, and brings about newness of life through faith. But grace can be resisted even by the regenerate.

5. Uncertain Perseverance: Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient to enable them to persevere in the faith. But it may be possible for a believer to fall from grace.

As an Arminian you should no more believe in post mortem grace than ante mortem. I was chosen not to receive your God's grace before I even existed. I was infected with original sin the moment I was conceived and nothing I can do can prevent my eventual journey to your Hell. Tell me how this is any better than Calvinism?

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\

Thanks, all. Sorry I don't have time to answer each of you individually, but... thanks. I really do care about understanding their motives, and your suggestions, advice and stories are helping.

- Jordan

<>

Because you have free will, and can choose - although you don't wish to.. as you have said. You can't blame God for that!

Because I believe in the possibility of second and subsequent chances, I am an heretic of sorts - but one with a pedigree 1000s of years old.

Hi Adib, or Rik Bailey, as your name now reads.

Have you heard the story of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector? It's one of Jesus parables, and is quite similar to the tale you recount.

http://watchtower.org/bible/?bk=lu;chp=18;vs=9-14.

TRiG.