How Tim Keller Made Peace with the Wrath of God

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39).

In a sermon titled “The Dark Garden,” Tim Keller explains how he came to understand that a god without wrath and Hell is not as loving as the God we find in the Bible:

Because [a cup of poison] was the method of execution for many people,…the Hebrew prophets came to use the cup as a metaphor for the wrath of God on human evil…. For example…Isaiah 54: “You will drink the cup of His fury and stagger.” So the reason why [Christian martyrs] who died for what they believed in didn’t die the way Jesus is dying—didn’t fall to the ground, didn’t find this horror coming down—was that they didn’t face the cup. They didn’t face the justice of God against all human wickedness and evil, which was just about to come down on [Jesus]….

It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that I came finally to grips—I made my peace, as it were—with the wrath of God. Now, it might shock some of you that…a preaching minister was struggling with the very idea of a God of wrath, a God who sends people to Hell…. And then it was studying the Garden of Gethsemane when I finally came to peace with it because I realized this: The reason why people get rid of the idea of Hell and wrath is because they want a loving God…. They say, “I can’t believe in Hell and wrath because I want a more loving God.” And I came to realize in the Garden of Gethsemane that if you get rid of the idea of Hell and wrath, you have a less loving God.

Because if there is no wrath by God on sin, and there is no such thing as Hell, not only does that actually make what happened to Jesus inexplicable—Jesus staggering the way He is, asking God, “Is there any other way?” [and] sweating blood means that He was wimpier than hundreds of His followers, if there was nothing like [God’s wrath]—but…the main thing is, if you don’t believe in the wrath and Hell, it trivializes what He’s done…. If you get rid of a God who has wrath and Hell, you’ve got a god who loves us in general, but that’s not as loving as the God of the Bible, the God of Jesus Christ, who loves us with a costly love.

Look what it cost. Look what He did. Look what He was taking. You get rid of wrath and Hell, He’s not taking anything close to this. And therefore, what you’ve done is you’ve just turned His incredible act of love into just something very trivial, very small….

And by the way, if the anticipation of these sufferings—if the very taste of these sufferings—sent the Son of God into shock, what must it have been to drink them to the bottom?

We see the height of God's costly love in what He did to give us grace, but you can't know the beauty of this grace—the very concept of grace will be meaningless to you—if you reject the rightness of His justice.

Comments

[Simbelle]

Awesome! A god without wrath cannot be loving because it would discount what we really know and experience ; real evil and injustice exist. As horrifying as the thought off hell is it pales in comparison to the thought that in end how we live our lives really is unimportant.
Thank God for his grace and that in Christ we are no longer under his wrath!

[Chad]

Sometimes I have thought that a good God could simply let love forgive wrongs. But then I think of crimes as we experience them...

Let's imagine that you are King of the world, and someone kills your two year old daughter. What sort of punishment would you hand down? There is no question of guilt, there is no question of intent. What sort of punishment does your love of your child demand on the murderer? Now let's consider a God whose love is far greater than our own - what sort of punishment would He demand?

You see, the greater the love of a just judge for the victim the greater the punishment demanded of the offender. Now imagine that every wrong you have ever done was against the child of the King. What punishment would his love demand?

[g]

I think a mistake a lot of folks make with this topic is to never go beyond human standards of love, justice, wrath, and mercy. The whole point of the Gospel starts with viewing the situation using God's standards, not ours. Articles like this begin to touch to that level, but of course we will never appreciate fully the Gospel from God's standards until we see "face to face."

[Carolyn]

Yes!! Good job, Amy.

[Vance F. Breise]

My heart and prayers go out to people who seek this kind of justice, many have been victims of horrible crimes.

[Nick]

I'm not sure I understand how you are envisioning the "Cup". One key text of Scripture I look to is Mark 10:38-39,

35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.”

38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized,

40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

Jesus says the cup he will drink will also be drunk by the Apostles. This cup cannot be God's wrath, but rather the persecution that God allows to come upon His servants.

p.s. you should enable the blog check-box to "email me of follow up comments" so that when people post they will get an alert for new responses.

[Tyler Geffeney]

Where can you find Keller's sermon?

[Robin Tomlinson]

I view the extent and severity of hell with this illustration: if a five year old accidentally spills milk on his sister's homework, the severity of the crime does not compare to a pre-meditated slicing of the Mona Lisa painting. Sin against an infinitely holy and priceless God must meet an infinitely just punishment. We don't like the idea if hell because we lack a true concept if God's worth.

[scbrownlhrm]

Some would say there is no such thing as Ransom. No such thing as Exchange. In-Sufficiency must somehow usurp the seat of All-Sufficiency.

Love, however, tells us there is such a thing as Ransom.

Love’s New Covenant is laced all through with the imagery of His peculiar economy.

Servant. Life. Blood. Poured.

Ransom.

Cup held up. Twelve. This is My blood.

Servant. Life. Blood. Poured. Self poured out for Other. For the sins of many Others.

Ransom.

Some Cups He can drink. Some we cannot. There is a Cup only He drinks. There is another sort of Cup which we may drink of. All-Sufficiency pours Himself out. Such is Love’s Cup. In-Sufficiency drinks, swallows, is filled up and finds therein Sufficiency. Such is Need’s Cup.

Ransom's Cup.
Ransomed’s Cup.

Ransom. Exchange. Altar. Lamb. Blood. Sacrifice. Guilt. Price. Pay. Poured out.

My Blood. This Cup. Ransom. Poured out for Other. Poured out for the Sins of Many Others. Self poured out for Other. Into Other. This is what Love does. This is what Love Himself does. This Cup He swallows and therein we are filled up, though He is emptied.

Love's Kingdom has many sorts of Cups amid His blurry, peculiar economy saturated with His sole currency of unusual numbers just out of mathematical reach. Many sorts of Into’s. Many sorts of Out-Of’s.

The-Self is emptied. Poured out. Abandoned. And this not in mere gesture. The-Other is filled up. Poured into. Embraced. And this not in mere gesture.

Within Love’s triune interior amid the I-You-We we find Self-Other thus pouring out-of, thus diving into, and so on forever worlds without end. There is but One Real. One Actuality. One Method. One Pattern. One Final Felicity. One Way. And His Name is Love. He is Love. There is no such thing as a Love-Independent Advantage. There is no such thing as a God-Independent, that is to say, Love-Independent, anything. Love’s currency is Himself. His Kingdom’s economy is Himself.

[Mike]

I heard God's wrath explained best by Wayne Jacobsen. Wayne says it in one sentence, "God's wrath is the full weight of His Being brought against that which destroys the object of His affection".
That one sentence makes sense out of every act of God, and turns table from a mean, hateful God into a loving God. It justifies Hell and every action that is classified as wrath.

[AJG]

And I came to realize in the Garden of Gethsemane that if you get rid of the idea of Hell and wrath, you have a less loving God.

Yes, because a God that would send objects of His creation - who were born into a sinful state through no fault of their own - to a place of eternal torment is more loving than a God who wouldn't.

The mind boggles at how people can talk themselves into accepting that which is clearly the opposite of reality.

Look what it cost. Look what He did. Look what He was taking. You get rid of wrath and Hell, He’s not taking anything close to this. And therefore, what you’ve done is you’ve just turned His incredible act of love into just something very trivial, very small…

Big deal. Jesus supposedly died a horrible death and was raised to life three days later in a better body. How is that more horrific than sending the vast majority of people who have ever lived to an existence without hope for ETERNITY? I'd much rather take Jesus' punishment than the punishment of those going to hell.

[Mo]

@ Tyler Geffeney

"Where can you find Keller's sermon?"

Click on the link and it takes you to the Redeemer web site. It's $2.50 for the MP3.

[KWM]

AJG,

I'd much rather take Jesus' punishment than the punishment of those going to hell.

Jesus was innocent. Perfect in every way. These are not "punishments" to be compared. Jesus did not face punishment for anything he did, but he took the punishment that we deserve. He was tortured and nailed to a cross bearing all the weight of the sins of the world.

Those in Hell or those that will go to Hell - go because they are guilty. We are guilty.
Fortunately, Jesus is continuously offering us a way out. We can lay our sins at His feet.

[KWM]

AJG,

How is that more horrific than sending the vast majority of people who have ever lived to an existence without hope for ETERNITY?

I’d be curious as to what type of “hope” you would like to see in Hell? What would it look like? What kind of benefit would be on the other side of this “hope” you refer to? In other words, a “hope” for what?

[Mike]

AJG, This is a topic that will require pages and pages of blogging, but a definition of Hell may need to be discussed here. One aspect of Hell is already here on earth, and will be a very real part of Hell that will be eternal. That is separation from God. Many, including my former self choose to navigate this world without God and we see the evil that man is capable of and the torment some suffer as a result of not knowing how valuable they are to the very God who created them. In this world, we have a few people who genuinely love one another as Jesus loves us (which is the new commandment given by Jesus in John 15) and uphold the moral framework that God planted in us because of that love. Imagine a place where there is complete separation from God. That will be place where there is no love, no compassion for one another, no moral framework. The boiling, burning pit of Hell is the result of an existence that is completely absent of love. Souls warring against each other continuously to strengthen their position in the food chain. A place like that will be a more horrible existence than any of us could ever imagine. The mental picture of the burning pit of Hell may in fact be very real, and may have been created (by constant battling and trying to destroy each other) by the souls that exist there. While we are breathing we have a choice: Make this journey with or without God. Jesus said, "Abide in Me and I will Abide in you." The word Abide is the same word used to describe the place He went to prepare for us. Hell is a place where we can no longer access God. He can no longer Abide in us. That will be by our own choosing. Not His.

[Carolyn]

Well said, Mike.

[AJG]

Jesus was innocent. Perfect in every way. These are not "punishments" to be compared. Jesus did not face punishment for anything he did, but he took the punishment that we deserve. He was tortured and nailed to a cross bearing all the weight of the sins of the world.

There's no evidence for this line of thinking. Jesus was just another man with all the weaknesses and foibles of every other human that has walked the earth. I could argue that infants are innocent, but many die every day. THAT is a tragedy; not the death of a messianic prophet who lived 2000 years ago and brought his own death upon himself.

Those in Hell or those that will go to Hell - go because they are guilty. We are guilty.
Fortunately, Jesus is continuously offering us a way out. We can lay our sins at His feet.

What are we guilty of? Living the life that we were created by God to live. How can men be anything other than that which they were predestined to be? And why would a supposedly good God punish men with a a punishment that infinitely outweighs the "crime" for men behaving in the way he created them to behave.

Thank goodness that since leaving Christianity I no longer have to come up with convoluted justifications for God's unjustifiable behavior.

[AJG]

I’d be curious as to what type of “hope” you would like to see in Hell? What would it look like? What kind of benefit would be on the other side of this “hope” you refer to? In other words, a “hope” for what?

It doesn't matter what I think about hell. Hell is a medieval myth that has outlived its usefulness in a world where reason has superceded superstition.

[Matt McAlister]

It's all an ancient myth, people. Once you figure that out, we can finally start moving past all this ridiculous bull.

[Jason Blue]

The contortions that Christian apologists go through (like this blog entry) are necessary to maintain faith. It's simply a way for Christians to resolve the cognitive dissonance that reality brings. As a very sincere, devoted, former Christian of more than three decades, I implore you to be courageous and take on step back from your faith to ask yourself a a very simple question, i.e. "Is there any real, objective evidence outside of my mind that any of this is real?" That's all it takes to to be set free from the prison of the Christian mythology.

[OPR]

Makes... Brain... hurt...

So glad I am not a Christian anymore and do not have to twist logic like this, in order to make things make sense!

[Shaughnessy McGillicuddy]

I apologize for butting in but must say this: this is the language of abuse, OP. This is the language of enablement; it is how abused spouses talk about their mates. This is just part of the grueling mental gymnastics required of Christians to reconcile their own morality with the idea of a deity of cosmic brutality and breathtaking cruelty. You even say it yourself: You can't see how wonderful God's nice periods are without knowing how horrifying his wrath is. I know exactly how that feels, and not just because I once worshiped the depraved being you do now.

Like some of these other people, I was a very devoted Christian for many years. But eventually I began to realize that even the most benign view of the Christian mythos makes God sound an awful lot like an abusive spouse and Christians like a battered wife. What you have written has all but given me flashbacks to my own years with my abusive minister husband, when I was trapped in a marriage which was so "Christ-Centered" it was considered a model for younger couples.

I really, truly, and with my whole heart invite you to reflect upon what you're really saying and why. There is a world out here, a wonderful free world filled with beauty and love and grace without strings and honeymoon periods and fear, and this is the only world you know for 100% sure you're going to have. Don't waste it on an abuser and a toxic marriage.

[AJG]

It is truly heartening to see so many who have tried to live the nonsense that is a Christian life jettison it for reason and rationality. I think of so many friends who are literally wasting their short (and only!) lives trying to satifisy the whims of a mythical being who is "in love with his own glory" to the point that he would glorify himself by torturing pitiful humans for eternity. May this trend ever continue!

[ktm]

All the talk about "abuse," "nonsense," "love," "logic," "good," etc. Unless any of you have an objective standard by which to define these words and an objective authority to say you are right or wrong, you are no different than those described at the end of the Biblical book of Judges when it says "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." If ten million people agree that murder is wrong, I can ask "why?" If they say because life is sacred, I can ask "why?" If they say it is against the law, I can ask "what makes the law right?" We are talking about ultimate issues here.

We know we exist. It is irrational to think and say we don’t exist since we must exist in order to be able to think and say we don’t exist.
We know the nature of our existence is that of mutability (change, time, progression, succession, etc.). Therefore it is irrational to deny our mutability simply because that would be saying there is no mutability in our existence.
Since we cannot deny our mutable existence, we cannot deny the necessary existence of an ultimate cause for our mutable existence.
An infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible, for if we can never arrive at an ultimate cause, no effect, no mutability, is ever possible, for no first cause could ever be arrived at from which an effect or mutability may result.
Therefore if no ultimate cause exists, we do not exist. But we know we exist, we know our existence is mutable by nature, and thus we also know that there exists an ultimate cause for our mutable existence, a cause that is itself uncaused.
Therefore it is irrational to deny that the ultimate cause of our mutable existence must itself be eternal, and thus immutable.
The uncaused immutability of the ultimate cause is an absolute necessity. If it were not uncaused and immutable it would be nothing more than another mutable effect from which we must continue to regress to arrive at the ultimate cause of our mutable existence.
Therefore, the existence of an ultimate uncaused eternal immutable cause of our mutable existence is an objective necessary reality, and we know it, even if we don’t acknowledge it.This eternal immutable cause is God,the Christian God, and He has revealed the truth about Himself and all of creation in the Bible. Try as you may, but you have no ultimate justification or explanation for the anything apart from Him. In fact His word states that you are suppressing the truth that He has placed in your mind:“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:18-23) Start by dealing with this first.

[Charles]

Well ktm.

[Charles]

Well put*

[Jason Blue]

Ktm, even if one subscribes to your (copy and pasted from your favorite apologist)

"The uncaused immutability of the ultimate cause is an absolute necessity"

theory, there is a giant, unprovable leap to your statement:

This eternal immutable cause is God,the Christian God, and He has revealed the truth about Himself and all of creation in the Bible.

I could say that the ultimate cause is Allah, or the aliens from Scientology, or Buddah, or an invisible purple unicorn, and I would have as much backing me up on that assertion as you do on your assertion.

Try as you may, but you have no ultimate justification or explanation for the anything apart from Him

Really? Abiogenesis, cosmological evolution, organic evolution, thermodynamics, natural selection...

[Jason Blue]

On a side note, why doesn't this blog notify me by email when someone responds?

[Matt McAlister]

I just hope when all the Christians wind up in Hades from rejecting the "One True God" (Zeus) you will finally accept this truth and mourn over your hopeless state, and beg almighty Zeus for forgiveness.

Sheesh. Religions are all the same.

[Matt McAlister]

Even if you *could* make a strong case for deism, I'd love to see you show the giant leap that goes from a "source"/ "uncaused cause" of the universe, to Yahweh/Jesus/whichever form of this god you so choose. This god is wildly irrational and illogical, barbaric, and without knowledge of the way it's own universe works. There is a REASON the Greeks came up with the concept of the demiurge- yeah, google that. Willing to bet you've never even heard of it. The OT god is bad enough, but the NT god, under its pretty packaging, is even worse, consigning anyone who doesn't meet it's criteria for acceptance to an eternal torture chamber, which neither rectifies the "sin" or gives the "sinner" a chance to learn from their mistakes. It's the worst kind of cruelty, going around the world telling otherwise decent people that they're horrible, unworthy creatures bound for everlasting punishment unless you JUST BELIEVE THIS, GUYS, THEN YOU'RE COOL!!

I wish I had been born 500 years from now when this plague will no longer exist.

[ktm]

Jason, first I would ask what has Allah, or the aliens from Scientology, or Buddah revealed? Also,I am the "favorite apologist" that I copied and pasted from ("All Things According To God" Amazon.com). Then you say "Abiogenesis, cosmological evolution, organic evolution, thermodynamics, natural selection." Explain how any of these qualify as eternal, immutable, uncaused entities.Explain a logical cause of the origin of all things, then point me to the revelation that states itself as such. Would you deny that your thoughts do not exist just because no one can observe them empirically? Can you demonstrate that your thoughts are physically written on your brain? If I cannot "see" Jason written on your brain, would you agree that your knowledge of Jason does not exist? My point here is that you are appealing to that which is empirical, that which is observable by the senses. People say "seeing is believing." However, does what a person "sees" provide the knowledge of what is seen? Is it not true that sensation provides no knowledge at all? Are we not actually always applying knowledge already present in the mind (not the physical "brain") to what we sense? Right now you are "reading" this sentence. However, if there were no knowledge categories of the English alphabet,certain groupings of alphabets, grouping of words punctuation, etc., ALREADY PRESENT in your mind, how could you even process the "data" you are sensing? My point is that abiogenesis, cosmological evolution, organic evolution, thermodynamics, and natural selection cannot even explain epistemology. By the way, neither can Allah, or the aliens from Scientology, or Buddah, or an invisible purple unicorn.If you have as much backing you up on that assertion as I do on my assertion, I would like to hear it.

[Mo]

@ AJG -

"Yes, because a God that would send objects of His creation - who were born into a sinful state through no fault of their own - to a place of eternal torment is more loving than a God who wouldn't."

God doesn't send anyone to hell. Crimes deserve punishment, do they not?

No fault of their own? So you are claiming you have never sinned? Not once in your entire life? Wow!

"The mind boggles at how people can talk themselves into accepting that which is clearly the opposite of reality."

And you know this how, exactly?

"Big deal."

That's as far as I read of your comment. THAT is the thanks the God of the universe receives for His sacrifice.

Horrifying, but not surprising. We've all behaved that way at one time or another.

His love is indeed amazing.

[Mo]

@ AJG -

"It doesn't matter what I think about hell."

Well then, why are you posting here about it?

[Mo]

That sermons was incredible! (Because our Savior is incredible!)

I encourage everyone to buy/listen to it, especially the mockers here.

[Jason Blue]

Ktm, congratulations on your book. Sincerely, writing a book is an accomplishment.

My point was that even if one accepts your "eternal immutable uncaused cause" logic, what makes you sure that cause is the Christian god? Why not any of the many creation myths throughout history?

If the Christian God is this cause, then where is he today where we have devices to actually record such a god, where he could so easily demonstrate his existence? He is silent, invisible, and unprovable, just like the other mythological gods.

[Shaughnessy McGillicuddy]

It's sad that you put dissenters into the category of "mockers." Some of us have been very greatly hurt by the dishonesty of Christianity and the cruelty of some of its followers.

If Christianity were true, though, one must say: there'd be no reason to mock it, and besides that nothing to mock.

I really invite people reading this blog to educate themselves about logical fallacies. Christians on this site have happily demonstrated "special pleading" as well as a number of false premises in their arguments; certainly nothing here is more compelling than "preaching to the choir." If that's what you really want, great, but how very sad to waste time and life on something so harmful and cruel. Ah well. It took me several years to really assimilate and finally act on what I found to be true, and no doubt the people reading this will be the same.

[ktm]

Matt,you say "This god is wildly irrational and illogical, barbaric, bad," etc. Are YOU the ultimate authority as to who and what is "wildly irrational and illogical, barbaric,and bad"? If not, to be consistent with your reasoning,how would you conclusively deny another person's claim if they said that what you considered to be "wildly irrational and illogical, barbaric, and bad," was rational, logical,justifiable, and good? If you have no ultimate authority, then at least be consistent and acknowledge that we all can think and do whatever we wish, even to each other, and no one is right or wrong. Of course according to your line of reasoning there is no universal standard of right or wrong. Again, at least be consistent. If you have no ultimate authority, then at least proclaim each individual to be "god" or whatever each individual chooses to be called.

[Jason Blue]

Ktm, I would guess that Matt's "wildly irrational and illogical, barbaric, bad" statement is based on the stories of the bible. Any objective reading the bible shows this to be the case. I can quote a bunch of examples if you like.

As far as the source of morality, there are plenty of studies on the evolution of morality, both genetically and culturally.

[Matt McAlister]

Super long post, erased. Curse you iPhone!!!!!

Readers digest- Judeo/Christian morality sucks as a standard. Secular morality (very loose and general term) is much more humane and loving, IMO.

Cant believe it all got erased.

[ktm]

Jason, you speak of a "source" of morality. What about a "standard" of morality? Shaughnessy says If Christianity were true, though, one must say: there'd be no reason to mock it, and besides that nothing to mock. I say if evolution were true, there'd be no reason to mock it, and besides that nothing to mock.Also, while not making light of the hurt inflicted supposedly "in the name of Christ," nowhere does the Bible teach that the TRUTH of Christianity is dependent upon CHRISTIANS. This truth is OBJECTIVELY true. If a bad math teacher teaches that 1+1=75, would you begin to doubt that 1+1=2? Would you believe that 1+1=2 is dependent on the math teacher? I read all of your responses and I have yet to hear one well-reasoned response or presentation concerning ultimate origins. I am sure that there are indeed "plenty of studies on the evolution of morality, both genetically and culturally." However, you have not even addressed the epistemology issue yet.

[Jason Blue]

Ktm, for the sake of discussion I will again concede your uncaused cause logic, i.e. something/someone is the source of everything...the universe, morality, and whatever else you would like to add to that.

If true, I contend that you have argued more for deism than Christianity.

So, I'll ask you for the third time (hopefully you will answer this time):

Why is your god the uncaused cause?

If you answer is 'because the bible tells me so' then we truly have nothing to discuss.

[Shaughnessy McGillicuddy]

If you actually understood the ToE, you might be a bit more embarrassed at confusing what you see creationists do against science with what ex-Christians say about your precious religion. I know. I used to be a creationist too. Still can't believe I went for such a pack of lies. But I know the appeal. There's a lot of egotism and entitlement that goes into a creationist's outlook.

I want to also say, ktm, you are one confused puppy. You confuse actual facts with your subjective, untested, untestABLE religious views. If a math teacher told me 1+1=75, I'd be able to look to dozens if not hundreds of other established sources to tell what it really was. People don't pull science and math out of their butts, you know. You're confusing objective reality with what creationists do. I gave you a page-long post--two of them actually on this thread alone I think--with plenty of information to get started on about why the Bible is absolutely not a moral authority. But you're still hung up on it. Why do we need a "source" of it? Why a "standard?" The evidence points to morality being an evolving concept that societies adopt and change as needed as we figure out better how to live with our fellow humans. I question what about you is so broken you must have a Cosmic Wizard telling you what is right and wrong or else you'd just have nooooo idea.

[ktm]

Well Jason, you have pointed out the main issue.Since my answer is 'because the bible tells me so' then I'm sure the same applies to Shaughnessy. When the response is "Why do we need a "source" of it? Why a "standard?", we truly have nothing to discuss. Appreciate your time.

[Jason Blue]

wow ktm, that's really your answer? Because the bible tells you so. Man, I was just joking. I'm disappointed. I thought you would have more than that.

May I suggest studying the historicity of the bible. You could start with Bart Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted. If the bible is your reason to believe that the Christian god is the uncaused cause, then you are on extraordinarily weak evidence, and are on no stronger ground that the billions who base their belief in their uncaused cause on their holy books.

[Shaughnessy McGillicuddy]

Jason, be nice. Only Christians are allowed to tell us apostates to read stuff. We're not allowed to tell them to read anything! ;) Might warm parts of his brain he ain't used to warming up.

What's terrible is that non-Christians have always been the most moral people I've ever known. I'm not kidding. When I've been most hurt, betrayed, and abused, it was always at a Christian's hands. If that's the "morality" that they have that is so much better for having come from an objective source, I'm glad to be out of it.

But even worse than that (because I realize that the plural of anecdote is not data) is the idea that ktm is that sure of his Bible. Oh really? Which translation, and to which result? Because as non-Christians are well aware, one can pretty much justify ANYTHING with that moldy old book. It told Hebrews to slice fetuses out of women's bellies in battle, to take pre-teen sex slaves after war (after murdering the teens' families, of course), to feed their wives abortifacient potions if adultery was suspected, to murder their own children to keep their promises--not once but twice, once successfully at that--and oh yeah, that whole flood thing that slaughtered the entire world's men, women, children, babies, and animals. The Bible's "objective morality" has been used over the years to justify slavery, treat women as chattel, stigmatize gays, and keep black people downtrodden. But now we understand better. Even Christians usually shy away from the worst of the Bible's "objective morality."

So stop pretending you have an objective source for morality, please. It's either dishonest or willfully ignorant.

[AJG]

God doesn't send anyone to hell. Crimes deserve punishment, do they not?

Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. -- Revelation 20:15

So did these people cast themselves in? Who's doing the casting here?

No fault of their own? So you are claiming you have never sinned? Not once in your entire life? Wow!

But God foresaw and even foreordained my actions. Why am I guilty for doing what he caused me to do? Wouldn't it have been better if he never created me? I know. It's a mystery!

That's as far as I read of your comment. THAT is the thanks the God of the universe receives for His sacrifice.

There is no god. You've been deceived.

[AJG]

Well then, why are you posting here about it?

I already said it was a myth. Why argue about something that doesn't exist. There is no heaven. There is no hell. There is almost certainly no god. There is only the here and now. Stop wasting your life living for the next one that is never going to come.

[mrt]

I am at a loss why those who reject the notion of a God or of faith in the supernatural even bother to leave comments. I don't mean to be unkind, but why would you even care to evangelize me to your side if this faith is some figment of my imagination or social construct. I really am curious and not being snipey.

[Jason Blue]

I am at a loss why those who reject the notion of a God or of faith in the supernatural even bother to leave comments. I don't mean to be unkind, but why would you even care to evangelize me to your side if this faith is some figment of my imagination or social construct. I really am curious and not being snipey.

Mrt, that's a fair question. I won't pretend to answer for all atheists, just for myself. I was a sincere devoted Christian for more than 30 years. I came to the conclusion that it was not true. I am committed to the truth. I think the world would be a better place without mythology. I occasionally interact with Christians in the hope of opening up their eyes to reality to set them free from mythology. It's out of love for my fellow human beings, not contempt for a god I that I do not think exists.

[scblhrm]

We need not worry. The claim leveled here is that the vast majority of human suffering has been at the hands of Christians. There is no real dialoguing with such emotional heat. A little mathematical and statistical analysis on something as simple as the number of Christians who have lived and so forth would reveal not only a mere lack of merit to such a claim but also solid mathematical proofs to the contrary. Such is the unthinking sort of heat and thoughtless rage we all dive into from time to time and it’s best not to even try to negotiate logic and truth with another while they are in the midst of such fist-shaking. Logic’s necessity and Love’s clear presence as the highest Ethic reveal the Immutable Hard Stop Who just is Love Himself and against such unending and Immutable Proofs as His we need not worry about these temporary and poorly thought out passions of our various agnostic and atheist friends.

Love is the Highest Ethic. Only, it is worse than that. Love is thus immutably so and therein we find that Triune Topography of Perfection, of Ontology, of Epistemology amid that embrace of the I-You within the Singular-We there within the Triune I-You-We of Immutable Love. God is Love and by Him we find that Love is our Final Felicity there within this Immutable Ethic.