I came across a video on youtube the other day by Hemant Mehta, otherwise known as "The Friendly Atheist." I think the moniker is a good one for him, to be honest. His tone is very amicable and, well, friendly. The video is titled "78 Questions for Christians." Here it is:
78 Questions for Christians
After watching the video all the way through, I am completely and totally convinced that pretty much every argument Mr. Mehta is making or assuming here are reactions against American cultural Christianity and not Christianity proper. In short, Mr. Mehta is burning down a lot of scarecrows and he assumes way too much. Not to mention, he is unwittingly stealing from the Christian worldview. I'll try to show why as I answer some of his questions.
He begins:
1. Is Anne Frank burning in hell right now?
2. How about Mahatma Gandhi?
3. Is Fred Phelps in heaven because he believed in the divinity of Jesus?
These three questions belong together. Here is my answer:
1. I don't know. But I do know that all those who repent and believe the Gospel are saved. I do know that baptism now saves you. I do not know if Anne Frank was a Christian by the end of her life. I also know that Anne Frank did nothing to deserve to go to heaven. And neither did I, for that matter.
2. Same answer as #1.
3. Still, don't know. Fred Phelps did some stupid stuff and had some stupid bad teaching.
The biggest problem though is that Mr. Mehta assumes that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi were overall better people than Fred Phelps. There are two major problems with this.
First, none of them are good people from the standpoint of Christianity. Neither am I and neither is Mr. Mehta; even though he seems very friendly and calls himself such. Heck, I would love to sit down and shoot the bull with the guy. We would probably get along just fine.
But here it is: Romans 3:23. We're all sinners, including Anne Frank, Gandhi, and Freddie boy. Oh, including Mr. Mehta and myself too. Certainly Mr. Mehta may have an argument against this because most likely he does not believe in sin. But that is kind of irrelevant to the topic at hand because he is using these questions to inadvertently attack Christianity.
The other problem Mr. Mehta has is: On what basis does he judge Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi to be overall better people than Fred Phelps? This is clearly what he is implying. I know from another video by Mr. Mehta that he does not like the question "Where do you get your morals?" OK, fine and dandy. But what I am asking more specifically is: What is the foundation for his moral judgments? What specifically in his worldview allows him to say that Anne Frank and Mahatma Gandhi are morally superior to Fred Phelps? Ultimately, he is left with his own opinion, or the opinion of the culture. Both of these will get a person into deep trouble eventually. Some people openly condone murder and other things. Some cultures openly condone genocide. Who is to say they are incorrect for this, based on a worldview (atheism) that has no ultimate standard for truth? Mr. Mehta may protest here and argue that those things are wrong, but all he is really doing is stealing from a worldview that has an absolute standard that actually says those things are wrong and tells you why: Christianity. All Mr. Mehta is proving here is that law is written on his conscience. Read St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, chapters 1 and 2. Back to the questions:
4. Should a killer who genuinely repents be able to go to heaven?
Yep. This is why it's called grace and forgiveness. This is why Christ died for sins. St. Paul and Moses were killers, and according to Christianity they were in Christ.
Here Mr. Mehta exposes another fatal flaw in his worldview. He implies that being kind and friendly and not killing people should allow a person to go to heaven. Here is what Christianity teaches: Mr. Mehta and myself are no better than that killer. Ultimately, although he has no religion per se, in reality he is posing questions towards a religion of law and works and not grace. Which is completely not what Christianity is.
Likewise, Christ died for the killer just as He did for Mr. Mehta.
5. Should a kind-hearted atheist be forced to go burn in hell for all eternity?
6. What about any non-Christian, good person? Should they be going to hell?
More flawed thinking here. First of all, there is no such thing as a "kind-hearted atheist." Heck, there is no such thing as a kind-hearted person. And I point the reader back above: On what basis does Mr. Mehta call people good?
Here it is: God's standard is Himself. His requirement is absolute perfection. Every atheist in the world does not meet up to that. Guess what? Every Christian in the world does not meet up to that either. That is why Christ died and rose for us. Because we can't do it. It's impossible.
7. Would you be happy in heaven if someone you loved was in hell?
It only took him seven questions to get to a decent one. But this is a tough one that I might have a harder time answering. I will say yeah, I will be happy in heaven, since Scripture says that God will take away all our sorrow and tears and so on. But the thought of someone I love in hell is terrifying, to be sure.
8. If your son or daughter were dying...would you just pray for them or would you take them to a doctor?
9. And if you say you would do both, which one do you think has more of an impact?
Both. God can use miraculous means, but He usually doesn't. Likewise, God uses the natural world to save the natural world, physically as well. I also think that Mr. Mehta is assuming an un-Christian theology of prayer here too. He seems to imply that Christianity teaches that prayer is a magical formula to change God's mind into giving us physical healing and all sorts of benefits here on earth. Well, that is simply not true. Prayer is essentially thankfulness to God for what He has already accomplished at Calvary on our behalf.
The "more of an impact" question is in the same vein. It assumes a sloppy theology of prayer.
10. Whose prayers, does God answer?
11. And if it's ultimately God's will what happens, why even bother praying?
12. If you have cancer right now, what's going to help you more? Drugs or prayer?
13. Let's say you had an amputated limb. Would prayer ever bring it back?
14. If you've heard stories about an amputated limb growing back, how come there are never any cameras around when anything like that happens?
15. How come there are never any cameras around when any miracles happen?
16. If you had an exam coming up, what do you think would help you get a higher score? Prayer or studying for the test?
17. If you prayed for me over youtube right now, do you think I would know it somehow?
18. What matters to God more, the quantity of the prayers or the quality?
19. If it's the quantity that matters, how come the most popular team doesn't always win the Super Bowl?
20. And if it's the quality that matters...how come people close to us die no matter what we say to God?
21. Is it possible that your prayers have no supernatural effect and only serve to make you feel better?
22. And if that were true, would you ever admit it?
OK, I am going to try to answer all these questions on prayer in one fell swoop. Again, Mr. Mehta assumes that prayer is a way to get God to act on our behalf in the physical realm. But this is simply not what prayer is. It's our chief means of thankfulness. Do we pray for people? Yeah, of course we do. But what is our biggest prayer for them? Not physical healing. Not money. None of that, because none of that really means a darn thing in the end. We pray for their salvation; their deliverance from the bondage of the law and the reception of the forgiveness of their sins.
Many of these prayer questions really miss the point. Who gets their prayers answered by God? Well, first properly define prayer and properly define what it means for God to answer a prayer. Why bother praying if God's will is always done? In short, you have to learn some theology in order to answer this. Christianity is not fatalism and we are commanded to pray. That is enough for us. If I have cancer right now, drugs will help me more physically and prayer will help me more spiritually. If I had an amputated limb, no, my prayer would not bring it back. God is concerned with saving sinners, not giving us our arm back. How come there are never any cameras around? Ask the phony Pentecostal money grubbers who make these false claims in the first place. Your question here is not an argument with Christianity, it's an argument with false teaching. Heck, I'll attack that stuff much more strongly than Mr. Mehta will. How come there are never any cameras around when miracles happen? Because the purpose of miracles (in Scripture) was to show that Christ is true God and His Apostles are teaching the truth about Him. They were (past tense) a validation of Christ's ministry. Hebrews 1:1: ...in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son... This is to say that miracles served a very specific purpose and that purpose was to show that Christ is truly the God-man who has authority over everything and that He is the Truth.
If I prayed for you over youtube, would you know it somehow? Nope. Next question.
What matters to God more, quantity or quality? How about a repentant and regenerated heart? This is kind of an irrelevant question and thus #19 and #20 are as well. Although I will say regarding #20, everyone dies. It's called sin. Christ saves us from that. Hence the resurrection at the last day.
Is it possible my prayers have no supernatural effect? Perhaps. But it also depends on what is being referred to. If what is being asked is why doesn't God bring back the legs of war veterans when we pray for that, then no, they have no supernatural effect. But if we're talking about Christ growing His church, then yeah, they do.
Would I admit it? Yes I would.
Ultimately, Mr. Mehta is lighting up a bunch of dry hay. But sure, burn them suckers down if you want to. Carry on.
I'll get to more in my next post. 78 questions is a lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment