There is this argument about hell, that God does not send anyone to hell, rather there are people to reject God and God merely grants them their wish. Not a good argument. Non-christians are logically incapable of “rejecting” God, since they do not believe that God exists. Only christians could “reject” God, but I don’t think that they would not do that, since it would make no sense.
This is not necessarily true. You can still reject something, even as an unbeliever, if you believe that you would (at least in principle) reject it if it
is real.
I have personally witnessed the declaration by unbelievers (though not all) that “If God says X is a sin” or “If God sends people to hell for eternity” etc., etc., etc., then “that’s not Someone I want to serve.” These people claim to not believe in God, and perhaps they truly do not, but they are explicitly admitting that they are
glad that (according to their beliefs) God does not exist. If such people were saddened by what seems to them to be the lack of God’s existence, or even if they were neutral about it, it might make sense to say that they did not reject God, but merely didn’t find enough cause to believe in Him. However, the moment that they possess a certain
gratitude for their unbelief, or when they actively
desire to disbelieve in God, their unbelief is no longer passive. It is something that, at the very least, they
prefer. And to prefer that God not exist is to reject Him.
In other words, to say “I don’t believe in this religion, but if it was true I would be either happy or at least unoffended by this reality,” is to indeed have a case (even though there might still be holes in that case) for saying “I do not reject God, but merely don’t believe.” However, if you say “I don’t believe in this religion, and I’m actually somewhat relieved that it isn’t true, and if it were true then its god would be guilty of injustice” or anything of the sort,
would be to reject God. That you only believe Him to be a concept is irrelevant, because in that scenario the difference between rejecting “God the concept” and “God the Being” is nothing but a formality.
Witness the following:
And this is the major stumbling block. Believers refuse to agree that a “horrible act” for humans is equally “horrible” for God. Of course this is called the fallacy of special pleading - and as such it is an impediment of being avle to reach over the “fence” toward the other. Whose fault is it?
It’s good that this statement came up in this very thread, because often when people make a similar statement (though maybe you yourself didn’t mean the same thing as they do
) it’s an example of what I’m talking about. Such a statement is often not a mere statement of disbelief, but is a value judgment: “If this god exists, he doesn’t have any legitimate authority to do anything people shouldn’t do. Therefore to call Him good and just despite action X, Y, and Z on God’s part is false.” That statement is an opinion, not a fact. One who states such an opinion is not merely withholding belief in God, but is making a statement about what he would think of God even if He
did believe in God (in this case, that his rights and authority do not exceed that of humans). At that point, the unbeliever is, whether he realizes it or not, rejecting such a god, not merely being an “unconvinced bystander.”
A person who was merely unconvinced of God’s existence would be someone who asserts that he has no problems with God’s character or God’s right to rule and make the laws He does, but is merely unconvinced of His existence. I have met very few people like this, personally. At the very least, many unbelievers I know show at least a hint of disdain for God’s right to impose certain morals they don’t like should He (“hypothetically” in their point of view) exist. Rarely do I meet such an unbeliever who accepts that God has a right to rule simply because He is God, because without Him we wouldn’t exist in the first place and therefore He has a right to define the terms, purpose, and condition of our existence.
Now some atheists might say “But even a person who would reject this god hypothetically would still choose him if they knew that he was real and thus Hell was the alternative.” But that means that they would not really be choosing God out of any sense of love or loyalty to their Creator, but only out of fear of Hell. They still reject God in principle, they’d just begrudgingly accept His rule if Hell was the alternative. And only someone incredibly stupid or
incredibly spiteful of God would still reject His rule
then. And while God CAN be merciful even to people whose only motives for accepting His reign are fear of hell, such an extravagant mercy (a mercy that is completely unmerited in the first place) is offered only (to my knowledge) through the sacrament of penance–which is only possible in this life, and only a believing Catholic/Orthodox would be capable of obtaining it (since only by truly believing in the Sacrament of Confession and its necessity can one meet the requirements for its validity).
Actually, it could in fact be argued that even a person who
doesn’t object to God’s right to rule, a person who merely withholds belief until he has found a convincing case to believe, is still rejecting God from at least a certain point of view, but what I’ve mentioned so far is enough to chew over for the time being, so this latest point–if I do delve into it–will have to wait for a later post, if the interest is there.
I hope this makes sense, and doesn’t sound like incoherent rambling.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
