Untying
The Gordian Knot
Of The Christian Faith
By Doug Soderstrom
04 August, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Having
spent the past forty years of my life studying the philosophical infrastructure
of the Christian faith, I have come to the conclusion that Christianity
(as understood by Christian fundamentalists) is not a rational system
of thought, that the primary axioms upon which the faith is based are
inherently flawed, internally inconsistent, to the point that such can
no longer be considered to be an ontologically valid theory of life.
However, for the purpose of this discussion, it is absolutely essential
that the reader understand that the pedagogy of Jesus is something quite
different from that of the Christian faith, that the moral and ethical
teachings of Jesus (the exhortation that we love God, our neighbor,
and our enemy) are discernibly different from that of the dogma associated
with such a highly politicized and humanly fallible institution known
as that of Christianity.
The fundamental propositions
on which the Christian faith is based are as follows:
First, there is the unrelenting
belief in an omnipresent (immanent), omnipotent (all-powerful), as well
as omniscient (all knowing) God.
Second, that this God (although
ostensibly stern and judgmental) is yet a loving God (1 John 4:8).
Third, that all human beings
have been created by, and in the image of, God as the one and only creator
of the universe.
Fourth, that human beings
had no choice in that of their creation…… that no human
being had the opportunity to choose to be, or not to be, a human being.
Fifth, that the vast majority
of human beings is not saved (Matthew 7:14), and will therefore end
up going to Hell.
Sixth, that salvation, according
to the “inerrant scriptures” of the Holy Bible, is a function
of having consciously accepted Jesus Christ as one’s own personal
savior without regard to how good a life one may have lived……
that salvation is a matter of “faith” rather than “works.”
Seventh, that a relative
inopportunity to accept Christ as one’s own personal savior cannot
be considered to be a justifiable reason for which to avoid punishment
in Hell.
Coincidentally, a couple
of years ago, on the web site for the International Mission Board, an
official entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, I ran across something
referred to as the “Map of Lostness (<http://going.imb.org/step_one.asp>).
It represents the percent of people in various areas around the world
that are considered to be lost, that is, unsaved, and therefore destined
to end up in Hell. Taking notice of the document, I located a web site
that gave the most recent population figures for folks living in the
different areas of the world represented on the “Map of Lostness.”
After a few rather simple mathematical calculations, I discovered that,
according to that document belonging to the Southern Baptist Convention,
ninety-four percent of all people living on the Earth today are likely,
upon death, to end up in Hell.
Now, given the foregoing
presuppositions on which the Christian faith is based, allow me to illustrate,
via a set of logical-deductive questions, the irrationality, and therefore
the invalidity, of the Christian faith as understood by Christian fundamentalists.
Logical-Deductive Question
#1-- Why would an essentially loving God, one in absolute control of
all things, always there to help us out, while paradoxically realizing
that the vast majority (ninety-four percent), none of whom had any choice
whatsoever in choosing to become a human being, would, for whatever
reason, end up being sent (by God himself) to the eternally burning
fires of Hell?
Logical-Deductive Question
#2-- Analogously (considering the parent-child relationship to be somewhat
similar to that of God’s relationship with us as human beings)
would it be reasonable for parents to have children knowing full well
that they would end up with little choice but to place them in the kitchen
oven, slowly roasting each to death?
If parents were in fact to
do such a thing (which, relatively speaking, is absolutely minimal compared
to the eternality of God’s punishment) either would be declared
to be insane or else so terribly evil that they would each be indicted
for first-degree murder and therefore given the death penalty. However,
as irrational as such a scenario might seem, God, apparently having
done the same thing, is looked upon by the fundamentalist religious
community as being an incredibly loving God!
Logical-Deductive Question
#3-- Regarding an individual who had lived an essentially selfless life
of love and compassion (an individual having spent the entirety of his/her
life caring for the mentally ill, physically deformed, and indigent
poor), but for whatever reason (raised as a Moslem in the Middle East
or perchance having lived in China during the 1st century A.D. before
word of Christ had spread to that particular area of the world) had
little opportunity to accept Christ as his/her own personal savior,
would it be reasonable for a God of love to send such an individual
to Hell? For most folks (at least those capable of rational thought
and a willingness to be honest) there would be a resounding “No,
of course not!” However, for those of the fundamentalist community,
there seems to be no problem, no problem whatsoever, no problem at all
with an apparently loving God having decided to send an innocent person
to the burning fires of Hell!
These are no doubt good questions,
so good in fact that fundamentalist Christians refuse to consider them.
For if such folks were to take the time to think through such issues,
the mental conflict (the ontological dilemma) would be so great that
they would have little choice but to abandon their faith in God. It
is little wonder that in order to avoid such peril, the vast majority
of Christians isolate themselves, make every possible effort to avoid
contact with those who do not share their beliefs. That, of course,
is the primary reason why so many of them do not want their children
to attend public schools, why they are so likely to either home-school
their children or to send them to schools run by that of their own particular
church denomination. And for those who may eventually, and all eventually
are, confronted with such issues, they are left with little choice but
to defend themselves by insisting that such questions are illegitimate
in that no one has the right to question “the truth of God.”
Given the need to protect
their own rather flimsily structured cosmology of life, it is no wonder
that such folks are unwilling to engage in an open-minded examination
of their beliefs. For if they, in fact, did such a thing and were found
wanting (realized that the “rock-solid foundation of their belief
in God” had been shaken), they would have little choice but to
question the fact of their own salvation; if, as a result of having
asked such questions, they might well be on their way to Hell.
It should now be rather easy
to understand why those of the fundamentalist community become so terribly
upset when “unbelievers” challenge their beliefs. To give
in, to admit that another’s logic just might possibly make a bit
of sense, would mean that they may well have entered the realm of the
unbeliever, the realm of the damned, and, of course, that is something
no God-fearing fundamentalist Christian would dare to do! Indeed it
would be rather admirable if such folks were willing to explore such
issues with a degree of openness and objectivity. However, after having
spent forty years discussing such matters with literally hundreds of
fundamentalist believers, such an outcome is essentially out of the
question, since, at least based upon my own experience, I have yet to
find one fundamentalist willing to engage in an honest examination of
his/her own religious beliefs.
Who knows, perhaps I was
a bit threatening, or perhaps they were simply scared, scared to death,
frightened that if they were to have taken the time to listen to me,
their chances of going to Heaven would have been diminished, that listening
to a bit of logic might have paved the way to Hell!
Concluding, let it be clear
that my intention has not been to intimidate anyone who might consider
himself/herself to be a Christian, but rather to simply clarify the
imperfections, the logical-deductive shortcomings, of the Christian
faith as a system of thought……. as an all inclusive theory
of man.
Doug Soderstrom, Ph.D. is
a Psychologist. He can be reached at [email protected]