3 ms·

So, if only I had vastly more insight and wisdom, I might approve of torturing ordinary people forever? I find this extremely unlikely. If you're so agnostic ab

by gort 17y ago

So, if only I had vastly more insight and wisdom, I might approve of torturing ordinary people forever? I find this extremely unlikely. If you're so agnostic about morality that you won't condemn the torture of ordinary people for eternity, I don't see how you can condemn or condone anything, ever. I don't consider this a cheap shot. This is the profoundly rotten core at the heart of traditional Christianity (and, indeed, Islam).

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
Look -- I'm not a religious person. But I'm willing to play along, because I understand the arguments. So let's continue for purposes of instruction. Religion is based around the limitations of human knowledge. The idea is that the Great Spirit, Great Father, or whatever is older and wiser than us (but yet strangely human!) so he understands things we do not. Just as when we were a child we did not understand things, now the Big Dude With The Beard knows things far beyond our kin. Like a child, you can stamp your feet and complain about his/her/it lack of suitable morality for you all you want, but it really just plays into the entire metaphor, doesn't it? I can tell you that more liberal Christans view sin as being apart from God, and hell as being simply apart from God forever. Taken this way, it simply means that if you're doing okay with the plan (whatever the plan is) you get to hang out with the big guy. If not, you don't. And that's awful! You really want to hang out with the big guy. It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such. I imagine "not hanging with the Big Kahuna" doesn't bring in the converts as much as "tearing your eyes out with pain" but I was never much into marketing and sales. As for me, and you seem to be interested in my morals, I'm perfectly happy not being able to make moral decisions for God. As long as he returns the favor. (grin) I don't think that torturing folks for eternity is moral for me to do, but I try to confine my judgments of morality to myself. I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me. Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general -- any kind of God -- before you go lumping the whole kit and kaboodle together and passing your own judgment on it.
- gort 17y ago
  I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics. "It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such." Indeed. Nevertheless, it is in the Bible you know: Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:22-24, Revelation 14:9-11, probably others: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,%20Mark%209:43,%20Luke%2016:22-24,%20Revelation%2014:9-11;&version=47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,...; "I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me." My great hope is that they will come to see that their concept of God is contradictory. "Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general" What I think is that P(God), while low, is much, much higher than P(God and Hell).
  - rms 17y ago
    My preferred explanation of heaven and hell works for the religious and non-religious. Heaven is eternal union with God. Hell is eternal disconnect from God.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      From my reading this seems to be the preferred usage by more modern Christians as well. It certainly is a much more defensible position.
      - gort 17y ago
        It's defensible because it's so vague. But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing. If it simply means annihilation, then fine. As I've noted, that's not how Jesus put it (according to the gospel authors, anyway). But OK.
    - Radix 17y ago
      From my experience with my families denomination, they see hell as the temporary disconnect from God followed by a lapse into non-existence. Which is an example of Daniel's point. There are different interpretations, so attacking a specific one, such as the hell fire interpretation, results in a weak argument. I would sooner choose hell than follow a God that was holding damnation over my head, though I think I would be happier if I was so delusional. Ah, well, the thread is dead.

by gort 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

Look -- I'm not a religious person. But I'm willing to play along, because I understand the arguments. So let's continue for purposes of instruction. Religion is based around the limitations of human knowledge. The idea is that the Great Spirit, Great Father, or whatever is older and wiser than us (but yet strangely human!) so he understands things we do not. Just as when we were a child we did not understand things, now the Big Dude With The Beard knows things far beyond our kin. Like a child, you can stamp your feet and complain about his/her/it lack of suitable morality for you all you want, but it really just plays into the entire metaphor, doesn't it? I can tell you that more liberal Christans view sin as being apart from God, and hell as being simply apart from God forever. Taken this way, it simply means that if you're doing okay with the plan (whatever the plan is) you get to hang out with the big guy. If not, you don't. And that's awful! You really want to hang out with the big guy. It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such. I imagine "not hanging with the Big Kahuna" doesn't bring in the converts as much as "tearing your eyes out with pain" but I was never much into marketing and sales. As for me, and you seem to be interested in my morals, I'm perfectly happy not being able to make moral decisions for God. As long as he returns the favor. (grin) I don't think that torturing folks for eternity is moral for me to do, but I try to confine my judgments of morality to myself. I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me. Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general -- any kind of God -- before you go lumping the whole kit and kaboodle together and passing your own judgment on it.

gort 17y ago
I won't repeat what I said above, but I stand by it. We're not children; we're not so incompetent about ethics. "It's the fundamentalists who get into this "lake of fire" bit and such." Indeed. Nevertheless, it is in the Bible you know: Matthew 25:41, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:22-24, Revelation 14:9-11, probably others: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,%20Mark%209:43,%20Luke%2016:22-24,%20Revelation%2014:9-11;&version=47 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:41,...; "I also think that you're arguing with what some bunch of folks "think" some other (probably imaginary) being will do, and that seems really, really silly to me." My great hope is that they will come to see that their concept of God is contradictory. "Better to determine what you think about the idea of God in general" What I think is that P(God), while low, is much, much higher than P(God and Hell).
- rms 17y ago
  My preferred explanation of heaven and hell works for the religious and non-religious. Heaven is eternal union with God. Hell is eternal disconnect from God.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    From my reading this seems to be the preferred usage by more modern Christians as well. It certainly is a much more defensible position.
    - gort 17y ago
      It's defensible because it's so vague. But if it's fleshed out so that the afterlife of the damned is so unpleasant that they would end their existence if they could, it comes to much the same thing. If it simply means annihilation, then fine. As I've noted, that's not how Jesus put it (according to the gospel authors, anyway). But OK.
  - Radix 17y ago
    From my experience with my families denomination, they see hell as the temporary disconnect from God followed by a lapse into non-existence. Which is an example of Daniel's point. There are different interpretations, so attacking a specific one, such as the hell fire interpretation, results in a weak argument. I would sooner choose hell than follow a God that was holding damnation over my head, though I think I would be happier if I was so delusional. Ah, well, the thread is dead.