Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[A Material Girl]

That is why God promises in the bible to punish entire generations upon generations.

The way I see it, it is not a promise. It is a threat.

But such violent threats are to be naturally expected from God, whom Dr. Richard Dawkins correctly characterized as follows:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

[LuckyR]

That is why God promises in the bible to punish entire generations upon generations.

The way I see it, it is not a promise. It is a threat.

But such violent threats are to be naturally expected from God, whom Dr. Richard Dawkins correctly characterized as follows:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Well, art imitates life. In other words, don't blame gods, blame their inventors.

[Sy Borg]

If some people just ARE wicked, and if, as you say, people cannot change their essential nature, then why did God create them with that essential nature? Why didn't God create everyone GOOD? Then there would be no evil and no need for punishment and the suffering punishment entails. It doesn't seem like a fair or just way to set things up. Or is God allowed to like injustice and unfairness and we just have to suck it up because that's what the boss wants? I'm not sure like the sound of such a doctrine.

Late reply ... I missed the notification because my box was full of certain high maintenance persons.

The usual reply to this is that God gives people a choice to be good or not, and then acts accordingly. As you say, the whole idea is unfair. It would mean that those born into dire circumstances where survival is uncertain would find it much harder to avoid damnation than those whose character faces milder tests.

As Lucky said earlier, eternal damnation is no doubt a fine deterrent, allowing leaders who exert greater control over the masses. Here, we need to consider historical context. These were wilder and less structured times than today, and without the lessons of history we have today. There would be violent warlords and criminal gangs who would terrorise innocents. These would not be people who surrendered easily (consider how long Palestine and Israel has refused to compromise) so they needed strong punishment.

In context, instilling fear of eternal damnation is perhaps a more merciful deterrent than torture and executions. It's akin to, say, an animal's display behaviour when under threat - they might growl, try to look bigger and stronger than they are, and generally present a fierce face. This kind of behaviour is designed to prevent violence, since evolution favours animals that don't die of infection due to battle injuries.

So the authorities in the Middle East and Rome presented this especially fierce vision of the afterlife to intimidate the potentially unruly so they would not commit violence.

Anyone who knows the story of Angela's Ashes realises that this vision of hellfire became inappropriate and was needlessly sadistic in a modern context. Like Christianity, hellfire's time of greatest value seems to have long passed. Now churches are largely tax avoidance schemes for highly profitable social clubs.

[LuckyR]

If some people just ARE wicked, and if, as you say, people cannot change their essential nature, then why did God create them with that essential nature? Why didn't God create everyone GOOD? Then there would be no evil and no need for punishment and the suffering punishment entails. It doesn't seem like a fair or just way to set things up. Or is God allowed to like injustice and unfairness and we just have to suck it up because that's what the boss wants? I'm not sure like the sound of such a doctrine.

Late reply ... I missed the notification because my box was full of certain high maintenance persons.

The usual reply to this is that God gives people a choice to be good or not, and then acts accordingly. As you say, the whole idea is unfair. It would mean that those born into dire circumstances where survival is uncertain would find it much harder to avoid damnation than those whose character faces milder tests.

As Lucky said earlier, eternal damnation is no doubt a fine deterrent, allowing leaders who exert greater control over the masses. Here, we need to consider historical context. These were wilder and less structured times than today, and without the lessons of history we have today. There would be violent warlords and criminal gangs who would terrorise innocents. These would not be people who surrendered easily (consider how long Palestine and Israel has refused to compromise) so they needed strong punishment.

In context, instilling fear of eternal damnation is perhaps a more merciful deterrent than torture and executions. It's akin to, say, an animal's display behaviour when under threat - they might growl, try to look bigger and stronger than they are, and generally present a fierce face. This kind of behaviour is designed to prevent violence, since evolution favours animals that don't die of infection due to battle injuries.

So the authorities in the Middle East and Rome presented this especially fierce vision of the afterlife to intimidate the potentially unruly so they would not commit violence.

Anyone who knows the story of Angela's Ashes realises that this vision of hellfire became inappropriate and was needlessly sadistic in a modern context. Like Christianity, hellfire's time of greatest value seems to have long passed. Now churches are largely tax avoidance schemes for highly profitable social clubs.

Nice one! Do you mind if I borrow this phrase?

[Sy Borg]

By all means, go forth and multiply the idea, my son.

[lincoy3411]

A punishment can be loving or unloving. An example of a loving punishment would be a loving parent punishing his/her child until that child learns his/her lesson and changes. Now, if god condemns unsaved people to eternal torment in hell, then that's an unloving punishment. In order for torment in hell to be a loving punishment, it must be temporary (that is, it must last until those people in hell finally change). Once they repent and accept Jesus as their savior, their hellish torment should end and they should be welcomed into god's heavenly kingdom.

This temporary torment would make god like a loving parent who punishes his children until they change. No loving parent would have his/her child tormented forever or annihilated (killed). We are like god's children, and in order for god to be like a loving parent, he can't condemn anyone to eternal torment or annihilate anyone. It says in the bible that god is love, which means his actions are loving. His punishment of unsaved sinners on Judgement Day should, therefore, also be loving.

You sound like Eleanor Stump!
She confuses many things and relies off of faulty assumptions. The biggest one is that God is not a Judge/Ruler but only a friend. Even if a judge in a courtroom has compassion on the accused, it would still be wrong for the judge to pardon them as that is not their job. Their job is to administer justice. The same goes for God as the Judge.
I don't believe in an eternal hell, but I can see it being justified as long as you postulate that the unsaved will continue sinning and thus continue needing more punishment.

[lincoy3411]

Now churches are largely tax avoidance schemes for highly profitable social clubs.

I find this incredibly offensive, unjustified, wrong, confused, and blatantly false. I know for a fact that my church leaders do not take in a large sum of money, even though my church raises an average of 50+M a year. I myself am a church leader, coplanning Junior High Ministry sermons, games, and worship services. I take no money from the church. My church leaders are not greedy, but frequently give much of their income (over 20%), and are some of the kindest, most loving people I've met. This goes for many churches. The only churches you hear about being greedy are the minority, incredibly large megachurches run by celebrities.

[Sy Borg]

Now churches are largely tax avoidance schemes for highly profitable social clubs.

I find this incredibly offensive, unjustified, wrong, confused, and blatantly false. I know for a fact that my church leaders do not take in a large sum of money, even though my church raises an average of 50+M a year. I myself am a church leader, coplanning Junior High Ministry sermons, games, and worship services. I take no money from the church. My church leaders are not greedy, but frequently give much of their income (over 20%), and are some of the kindest, most loving people I've met. This goes for many churches. The only churches you hear about being greedy are the minority, incredibly large megachurches run by celebrities.

Sadly, I truly, deeply and sincerely do not care about your emotional state ... no more than you care about mine, yes? So, let's talk turkey without the personal stuff.

The megachurches you mention are "incredibly large" because they are by far the most popular religions in the US. As their popularity rapidly rises, other denominations are rapidly diminishing. Further, we know that corruption can be found all over all churches; sexual offences against children paedophilia in churches were found to be widespread. The torment for victims is not eternal, though it might feel like it.

Thus, not all of the smaller denominations play it straight like your church. If what you say is reliable, and all churches operated even like yours, then we would not be having this conversation. Still, ostensible giving is no guarantee of goodness. How did everyone find out that the church leaders are giving a 20% tithe? Why did they tell people about their charity giving? I don't know anyone who publicly discusses how much they give.

Once, we all believed that church people were fine and morally upstanding. Then the paedophilia scandals broke - and they never stopped breaking. The scale of abuse was beyond anything that anyone could have imagined. It's like Jimmy Savile, who abused with impunity for half a century, not suspected because of his charitable work.

So, I would be more comfortable to see all churches taxed like any other organisation. Some good churches might lose out but more bad ones will be denied further public monies. The good ones could apply for grants like any other NGO.