On Hell and Forgiveness

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'll let you in on a secret: there is not an objection to a Biblical doctrine you can think of that has not been answered for centuries (if not longer) . 

Or reexamined and continue to be debated. While there are many know-it-all absolutist Christians, so very many more see the Bibilical texts as so richly endowed with meaning that one could study one's whole life and never exhaust the depth of its wisdom. IMO they contain harsh rebukes, disturbing stories, obscure allusions, and tantalizing insights. To grapple with them is itself an exercise in humility. When I come across the very legitimately problematic stories about the Amalekites or apparent contradictions, I am willing to "put a pin it", so to speak as I reflect the overall narrative, read backwards, and consult the wealth of commentaries that go back at least 1500 years.

That's quite a bit of work. I can understand how nonbelievers, and even naive believers, don't have that level of motivation. At the same time, I find the knee-jerk dismissal by some atheists, even those raised in the church, when they discover apparent contradictions,...I find it closed-minded. When you add to that closed-mindedness a propensity to mock and ridicule believers, I find it more than disrespectful. I cannot help but suspect underlying psychological motivations for such people embracing atheism, such as the need to feel smarter and more rational then "those guys." Substitute, "Mexicans" for "Southerners" and the blatant bigotry is immediately revealed for what it is.

I have also noticed that the targets of these types of atheists are never serious thinkers like N. T. Wright or David Benteley Hart, but rather, low-hanging fruit like William Lane Craig or Lee Strobbel. It's become a very low-level of discourse here, or maybe it always has been, and I'm just starting to see it. I haven't always been exemplary of high-level discourse myself. It takes a lot of work and doesn't often get rewarded with earnest critique. No one really engages with your arguments, Steve. That's too bad because there are legitimate and nuanced objections to some of your points. I know I take issue with your Molinism and a couple minor points of doctrine. On AF those disagreements between Christians just serve to reinforce the black-and-white thinking of some atheists, as if healthy debate between believers was somehow a sign that none of it could be true.