Thoughts on Afterlife III: Response to DS' comments on my previous post

Finally I have a chance to really write something on my blog. And as promised, I will respond to DS' comments on my previous post. As there are many issues raised, I shall respond to them one by one, some requires a lot of clarifications but some don't.

1. "religion = a belief
believer = people who practice their belief"

My response:
Agree, I think I never mix up religion and believer in any of my post before. I'm clearly aware of that distinction, as I was a christian before, and I'm very well aware of that kind of criticism from non-believer, ie: "because a christian does something wrong, therefore christianity/bible is wrong". Maybe you are referring to me quoting the example that a mother (who happened to be a christian) who stoned two of her sons to death and left the third with permanent injuries because she claimed that she heard God telling her to do. Maybe it's my language problem, and thus my writing gives you the impression that "so it's like u saw a christian murdering, then u related it to 'bible say murder is right" , if that is the case, I must say sorry for my language problem, because I never intend to mean that way.

Before going into further discussion, let me lay out the biblical background first:

Summary of the event:
a. God tested Abraham by asking him to kill his son.
After these things, God tested Abraham and said to him, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." (Genesis 22:1-2)

b. Abraham did what god told him.
"When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son." (Genesis 22:9-10)

c. God eventually told Abraham not to kill his son.
"But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He (referring to angel) said, "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing that you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:11-12)

After understanding the background, let me now ask some fundamental questions.

i. Will god (I mean the same god in the bible) asks a human to do something unethical/immoral?
The answer is clearly, yes. This is not only referring to this specific case of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (because god asked him to do so), you can also revisit the list in my letter.

ii. If god can ask somebody to do both ethical and unethical/moral and immoral things, how can you be sure that everytime when you hear your "invisible friend" talking to you, he must be God? And not Satan? And not your own imagination? Again, how can you be so sure?

iii. Let's imagine your dad asking you to sacrifice your son to show that you fear him/you love him--> is this morally right?

iv. Let's imagine you're Isaac who was just a few years old, who was tied up and put on the altar, with the person that you trust the most, love the most holding a knife on your face and trying to kill you.
Let's just go through this thought process, how traumatic do you think you would be as a little kid?
What kind of effect do you think you would have, mentally and emotionally to go through this kind of process?
Do you think there is no harm done to the child at all? Do you seriously think that?
And do you believe that a God who did this kind of outrageous (if it happened in today's society, just see the case above) and inhumane thing to an innocent small kid can be called all-loving, fair and just? Remember that that is not just a number, but a human life with life stories, aspirations and relationships like you do. Just put yourself in his shoes and ask yourself these questions.

So what is the relevance of all these with the woman killing his son?

i. Obviously, (from your comment) you think that god did not tell her to kill her son like what god told Abraham in the bible (quote from your comment "this mother twisted her understanding in her religion, obviously"). But how can you be so sure? God did that before, what makes you think that he wouldn't do it again just to "test her" like how he tested Abraham before?

ii. Assuming that God did talk to her, why was she wrong? She was just doing what god told her to do? She was just doing what Abraham did to his child too-- trying to kill his son. So shouldn't you praise her for what she had done, for her being so faithful to the calling of the god? (if you truly believe that what Abraham did was morally right and worth praising, ie: by calling him father of faith) And shouldn't she be called "mother of faith"?

This is the background and my response to your first issue. Sorry for the long reply, but I hope it adds more clarity to my previous response. Now I move on to second issue.

2. "about the Abraham and Isaac, this incident is indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world. as for abraham, he's known as 'father of faith' becoz he strongly believe that life was given by HIM. but then in the end, god stopped him last minute"

"so, the difference in your comparison is that, the mother killed her son vs Isaac wasnt killed"

My response:

I must say something, not referring to you in particular, but the Christians that I have met and discussed with about this issue so far. Without generalizing this to all the Christians, I must stress that what I say is only referring to the few Christians that I have discussed with so far (including DS).

Usually Christians defend the obscurities in the bible by the following ways:

i. Using speculations to support a (biblical) argument
For eg in this case: there is not a single passage, or verse in the bible that says "this incident is indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world." If you find one, you can let me know. Yet this explanation, which is a speculation or a wild imagination (not found anywhere in the bible) is so prevalent among Christians (that I have discussed with). I'm very well aware of this explanation, of course, I have been attending sunday school since kindergarten. It's almost like a standard answer to this issue. But the truth is, it is merely a speculation or interpretation.

Why I don't like to use a speculation/interpretation to support a (biblical) argument? The fact is, interpretations can be so diverse, so varied, so subjective and so unreliable. Anyone can interpret bible verses their own way (since no one has monopoly over the interpretation of the verses). So, if I'm gonna make a statement about the bible, I'll surely quote the verses, and not making any speculation or interpretation myself. Let the bible speaks for itself, it doesn't need a spokeperson.

Having said that, I will still like to entertain your speculation. So you think the intention of this incident is to "indicate that in the future god is also capable of sacrificing his son for the world". The intention is noble, no doubt on that, but does that justify asking a father to kill a little innocent kid, does that make killing a son morally right? To give you an analogy, let's say I intend my son to behave properly, there is nothing wrong with my intention right? But does that justify me abusing my child to achieve my intention? In chinese, I would say that is “不择手段". It doesn't matter how noble your intention is, asking a person to kill his son is just plain wrong, I don't think any further explanation is required. This leads to my next point.

ii. Lowering morality/ethical standard to fit the bible
As mentioned above, asking a person to kill his son is simply morally wrong, please don't tell me that "asking somebody to kill his son is right because the intention is noble."

Another point is:
It doesn't matter whether eventually the son was killed by Abraham, ordering a person to kill his son to show his fear or love for his father/master is simply wrong.
To give an analogy, it doesn't matter whether a president is eventually successfully assassinated, employing an assassin to kill the president is just plain wrong. The result doesn't justify anything. Please don't tell me that "because Isaac was not killed, therefore, God asked Abraham to kill his son is right."

The point I want to make here is that "Defend your conscience, don't defend a book for the sake of defending it. Please don't lower/corrupt your morality standard to fit a book. Stand for what you believe is right (I don't think you will believe "asking somebody to kill his son" is morally right)." This is also my plea to all Christians who still have conscience and a rational mind.

iii. Quoting out of context
This is also one of the most popular arguments given by Christians when I discussed about contradictions or unacceptable values in the bible. I will often ask: "Maybe I'm not intelligent as you are, maybe I'm ignorant, but if you think I quote the verse out of context, please tell me what is the context, and please point out to me from which part of the bible you get the context". That will be my response. You're welcome to tell me the context, and justify it using bible verses/passages, please don't give me speculations or your own interpretations.

3. "if u read the bible in more detail, u will realize that new testament is actually the reflect of the old testament, they complement each other"

My response:
Thanks for reminding me about things that I have learnt in my sunday school since kindergarten. I never deny this in my post. What I'm writing about in my blog are things that you don't and will never learn from sunday school or any sermon ( I don't think any pastor will preach about "contradictions in the bible"). The bible contains complements, as well as contradictions. The contradictions here are not only referring to "textual contradictions", but also "values contradictions". On one hand, bible talks about loving and caring, on the other hand, bible talks about slavery is ok, human sacrifice is ok, discrimination against the handicapped is ok. On one hand, every single word in the bible is claimed to be the "word of God" and absolutely right, yet on the other hand, it's contents had been changed so many times by scribes and unknown authors (if you have read "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, if you are lazy to read, you can listen to the relevant radio broadcast here, here & here)

4. "about the 'newness' u mention, u can refer to the bible which said that they were exiled from eden to a world with limitation and suffering. so this can be referred as time, space, lifespan, etc etc. So when everthing is unlimited in that world, being happy is like 'breathing' u wont feel xian at all.yes time always exists, but the dimension that afterlife exist is the other dimension distinct from the dimension where time exist. ok.. this sound very weird but then, as said 'time' is a finite factor. in current world we may think that 'time' is increasing as time goes by, but every living thing or energy form in any part of the universe is sort of like having their own 'clock system' which is in a countdown mode?"

My response:
Thanks for your speculations. Seriously, the only honest response I can give is "I don't know", and I don't believe any living person actually knows how heaven (if there is) is like. I can only base my discussion on things that I can see, feel or imagine from my past experience of life (which may not be reflective of how the heaven looks like). Of course, heaven could have different meaning to different people, and I think everyone has their own "model of heaven". I shall refrain from disputing your "model of heaven" here.

5. "And go read up, bible do say tat not all so-called christians may go to heaven, and not all non-believers go to hell. seriously, u really need to read every corner of the 'newspaper' not just the highlighted one.."

My response:
Sorry I must say this, and sorry if my understanding of your statement "And go read up.......seriously, u really need to read every corner of the 'newspaper' not just the highlighted one.." is wrong, I couldn't help but wondering if you think that I intentionally pick the "malevolent verses" and try to mislead people without reading the whole passage. If that's my purpose, I'm in no way more honest than those christians who try to pick the "benign verses" and try to mislead people to think that bible is all about all-loving, fair and just god.

If you think that I miss out something, feel free to point out to me, I admit that I don't have super-memory and am not capable of remembering every single word and passage in the bible. But if I were to discuss with somebody about biblical stuff nowadays, I will point out to him the exact verses or passages to counter his argument and I will assume that he misses out that line, and not think that he purposely tries to mislead me.

On your point about "not all so-called christians may go to heaven, and not all non-believers go to hell.", I agree with you that, according to bible, not all so-called christians may go to heaven--> "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21),

but disagree with you that not all non-believers go to hell (according to bible)-->
i) "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16)
ii) "Jesus said to him, " I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

And let's revisit my previous statement--" I don't think that having a hell filled with more than 80% of the people on earth suffering (since there are only about 10-20% of the people on Earth claim to be Christians) is a way to make me feel happy if I were to be in heaven."

I'm very fully aware that not all christians will go to heaven (according to the bible), that's why I think there will be more than 80% , probably 90% of the people going to hell. I must say that I don't know what qualifies you as a christian that can enter heaven, pls see my letter on "How to have eternal life/ inherit the Kingdom of God?" for the various criteria (not just one), I bet not more than 1% of the people on earth can enter heaven (if according to the criteria laid out).

6. "and about slavery and stuff u mention, it's actually a very interesting part.. go read up the whole chapter which state the origin of slavery..i forget which part, i'll show u when i happen to pass by that chapter again..slaves are normally foreigners, u have to find out the origin and the foreigners as well, and also the consequences the israelites have to bear to have slaves."

My response:
Yes, I agree it is interesting that a god that is claimed to be all-loving, fair and just actually sanctions slavery, an abhorrent practice which is clearly against humanity. There are two main parts of the bible that explicitly mention about the law of slavery, of course there are also other parts that contain slavery, but I shall just focus on the two main parts which are the central passages to understanding of the slavery practices in the bible.

The two parts are:
i) Exodus 21:1-11, 21:20-21, 21:26-27, 21:32
ii) Leviticus 25:39-46

According to the bible, there are 2 types of slaves-- Hebrew slaves (in Exodus) and non-Hebrew slaves/foreigner (in Leviticus). In fact, either in the Old Testament or New Testament, there is no single verse that condemns or prohibits the practice of slavery. Does it matter whether the slaves are foreigner or Hebrew? Is it implicitly assumed to be morally right to enslave a foreigner but not a Hebrew? I don't know what's the point of you mentioning whether the slave is foreigner or Hebrew. It doesn't matter whether I enslave an Indonesian or a Malaysian, the practice of slavery is just plain wrong. Again, please defend your conscience, not the book. I have actually written a post on slavery, not sure if you have read it. It's my further elaboration on this issue.

7. "and dont relate some of my thoughts to christianity as well, like the one i think tat this world is so meaningless, and i'd rather do nth and die LOL... "

My response:
Did I do that? I actually did not have any biblical reference in my 1st post on afterlife. Again, if my language misleads you to think that, I'm sorry for that.

8. "bible actually say u should actually nourish urself and the ppl around u given ur talent and conditionand time is limited, u've to treasure it by doing sth meaningful, for u will be rewarded or punished accordingly. (of coz i paraphrase, im not a bible, i dont remember every verse, i summarize and remember the main point)"

My response:
With due respect, I think you're referring to Matthew 25:14-30, just my guess, sorry if I'm wrong.

9. "im not implying that u're anti-christ o wad la. i feel that u're more of anti-supernatural-being-existence"

My response:
Sorry, your guess is incorrect. I'm actually open to things that I don't know.
Do I believe in the existence of God, heaven, hell, afterlife, angel, ghost, holy spirit, miracles (true miracles, like turning water into wine, not magic tricks) ? Frankly, my most honest answer to you is I don't know. I will not pretend that I know for sure, which a lot of religious leaders preach about. All I can say is "I DON'T KNOW", and I believe any honest person should give this answer too, and not pretending that they know everything for sure, especially about things like supernatural-beings, or extra-terrestrial beings. Of course, I'm open to the possibility of the existence of those things, if not I won't be bothered to discuss about god, heaven, hell and etc.

But there are many things that I can be sure of. One thing is that bible is really the word of human, not the word of god. Another thing that I'm sure is that if I were to choose a religious text that preaches love and compassion and good morality, the bible, which contains so many "hateful elements" will surely not be listed in my top 5.

10. "i strongly believe there is the existence of a powerful being/creator, normally human give it a name, 'GOD'. this feeling turn stronger and stronger throughout my uni times becoz i realize there's a lot of phenomenon which cannot be explained in whole scientifically.eg. the big bang theory."

My response:
Again, I'm totally open to the possibility of the existence of a God. But I will not immediately jump to the conclusion that the god in the bible is the "true god". There are hundreds and thousands of gods on earth, how can you be so sure that the god in your bible is the "true and only god"? And contrary to your uni experience, my study of economics actually opens up my mind to the possibility that there could be no god at all (of course not directly, since economics doesn't study about God, but in an indirect way). Evolution might be the way how we come about. It's a possibility that I cannot ignore. Again, my answer to the question of the origin of life is "I don't know", and I don't attempt to simply fill in that gap with "God" just because I don't know how it happens.

Of course, to say that "God created it" when responding to the unknowns is an easy solution and easy way out, but when I stood in front of the fossils formed millions and billions of years ago when I was in Australia, I asked myself, "Aren't we supposed to be more humble and be more diligent in searching for answers to the unknowns, rather than filling in the gaps with the word "God", and pretend that we know how everything comes about (ie: God created it) just because somebody unknown (the author of Genesis is still unknown today, and it's not Moses), who didnt even know a teeny-weeny bit about astrology, biology and chemistry etc wrote it thousands of years ago?

Finally, I must thank you for raising so many issues so I can have the chance to really clarify and discuss about them. Thanks!