I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. Some religions largely reject the literalism you find so repugnant, denying the literal eternal damnation you attack.

That is, if your atheism is the result of the evil you find in the God you describe in the OP, you might be better served to find a more suitable religion for you. It's not as if religion must rely upon the sort of God you describe. — Hanover

Yes, this is often said. I guess for me (not that you asked) Christianity and Islam (our most popular brands of God) seem to head into literalist and vengeful space so regularly and from so many directions (impacting upon governments and the legislature world wide) that the problem seems comprehensive and endemic, regardless of the liberals who no doubt exist in many faith traditions. And it's not just atheists who characterize religion in this way. My friend who is a Catholic Priest (a follower of Father Richard Rohr) believes that Christianity is largely a story of bigotry and judgmental zealotry. I may have a vested interest in this idea, he doesn't.

I mean have you read the OT? God commanded the Israelites to go into villages and slay every man, women, child, and animal, what does that say about this concept of God? All it tells me is that the concept is flawed, and the concept probably has no instance in reality. If there is a God, he probably is nothing like any religious idea of God.

I am not a Christian myself, but I think this interpretation is from people who don't understand the faith very well, or who had it twisted to scare them into being believers. Lets also not forget that Christianity was formed 2000 years ago, and does not come from a culture with our modern sensibilities. War, disease, famine, and death were common bed fellows.

My understanding of the Christian doctrine is that everyone that is human will eventually die. The reason for this is "sin", or that humans are unable to live in accordance with God's laws. Anyone who doesn't follow God's law, dies. There is essentially very few who are worthy. There are various interpretations, but Jesus is seen as an incarnation of God as a human being. Its the idea that God wanted to live as a man to see why they couldn't uphold the laws God set.

So you have God as a man, living, and feeling like a human being. Trying to teach the mortals around him. Due to the fact that Judaism is a very law like religion, God didn't want to break his law, so he willingly suffered incredible pain and death, perhaps to see what it was like, but to also "pay for the sin of all of humanity".

The idea, is that you've been paid for. We all have. It doesn't matter whether we believe it or not. I believe St. Paul states something to the effect that the only advantage Christians have over non-Christiains, is that Christians have the joy of knowing this sacrifice, and that we all have eternal life. This joy is to make you want to spread the word, and inspire people to live more fulfilling and better lives, knowing that death is not the end.

On "the last day", the dead are supposed to rise again once more. Jesus will let them know that their life has been paid for, if they simply accept it. Some will reject it. Some may not want to live forever. But all are essentially forgiven. If you refuse, you die. That's it. No torture, no eternal fire, you burn away to the ash you began as.

Of course, over the years mankind has taken a hold of this and twisted it for its useful purposes. The church needs people to come to mass and donate, or it will cease to function. So you have to give a reason to come to the pews. While Jesus' message is mostly a one and done, that doesn't keep institutions going. So a lot is done to keep people fearful and thinking Christianity is something its not.

Do we blame the person who merely wants to do the right thing, and trusts in an institution to tell them this? Many people are not into thinking deeply about ideologies, and the church forms a social tie and connection to family and friends. The same can be said of extreme political ideologies, sports teams, and many other social groups with strong ties. I feel it is unfair to pick on religion in particular, when I see the same "evils" coming from so many other social groups. I suppose a mac person doesn't tell a pc person they'll burn in hell for all eternity, but they might wish it. :)

Likewise, though these social groups can form evil ideologies, do we neglect their good as well? I feel if we examine our own lives honestly, we might find we have our own blind spots and illogical inconsistencies we live by. The older I get, the more difficult I find it to judge others, when you realize we're all human at our core, and we all get caught up in things that aren't always ideal.

The point is that people can easily interpret this or that verse, in this or that way. But there are plenty of verses in the Bible that indicate, at the very least, there is separation from God for the unbeliever. I spent years studying the Bible, and memorizing large portions of the Bible, but I'd be hard put to recall much of it. There are a lot of references to hell in the Bible, and those references go to the unbeliever. — Sam26

The point is that people can be ignorant, stupid, and wrong, and they are assisted by translations of the bible that just plain ain't right, preachers who neither know nor care, and others who do but know how to exploit the flock. As to "hell" in the bible, you've been reading too many translations. I invite you to do even a little online research on whether it actually occurs in the bible, and of the words used, what they actually mean. This is not about what you or anyone else think it says or want it to say but instead about what it does say.

I am not a defender of anything, but rather seek clarity, accuracy, and understanding. And the OT law is dead; it's the NT now. Which obviously does not make a lot of sense if referring to a perfect being.

I'm going back to Wittgenstein. I'm not getting into arguments over this or that translation, or whether the Greek or Hebrew says this or that. What I know for sure, is that regardless of whether this or that person is stupid or ignorant, that's what they believe, and that's the point.

I mean have you read the OT? God commanded the Israelites to go into villages and slay every man, women, child, and animal, what does that say about this concept of God? All it tells me is that the concept is flawed, and the concept probably has no instance in reality. If there is a God, he probably is nothing like any religious idea of God. — Sam26

No doubt about it. The Old Testament supports slavery, genocide and rape and depicts a monstrous and evil creature who insists on being worshipped. This is not a creature that deserves anything but scorn.

No doubt about it. The Old Testament supports slavery, genocide and rape and depicts a monstrous and evil creature who insists on being worshipped. This is not a creature that deserves anything but scorn. — Tom Storm

I'm not saying there is no God, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I don't believe there is such a being as presented in the Bible, or any other religion. Now some people use the concept God in a very general way, that's fine, but to think the Bible is some divinely inspired book just seems a bit out there. People had all kinds of strange beliefs 2000+ years ago.

but to think the Bible is some divinely inspired book just seems a bit out there. — Sam26

Agree. Ditto for any holy book and there are many of them.

I don't say there is no god either - I have simply heard no argument or seen any evidence that is convincing to me. The concept of a god seems fairly incoherent in the first place and more of a placeholder idea - a raison d'etre and an explanation in one unknowable package.

I'm going back to Wittgenstein. I'm not getting into arguments over this or that translation, or whether the Greek or Hebrew says this or that. What I know for sure, is that regardless of whether this or that person is stupid or ignorant, that's what they believe, and that's the point. — Sam26

Fine. That's your right. But then it matters what you or they call yourselves and what you represent as fact.

Further, I have invited you to read something with more care and attention that perhaps you're accustomed to and to do even a little on-line looking about a claim you made. And you're not interested. Where I come from, such dismissive non-interest disqualifies you from conversation. Not least because you have fired off all of your ammunition. "It means what I say it means!" And were that the case, what need the rest of us for any other authority, or even opinion.

Further, I have invited you to read something with more care and attention that perhaps you're accustomed to and to do even a little on-line looking about a claim you made. And you're not interested. Where I come from, such dismissive non-interest disqualifies you from conversation. Not least because you have fired off all of your ammunition. "It means what I say it means!" And were that the case, what need the rest of us for any other authority, or even opinion. — tim wood

You have no idea as to how much care I put into studying the Bible, or theology for that matter, that's pure speculation! I was interested enough to study the Bible for years, including going to a Bible college and some master level classes, so I think I have a right to be dismissive of some of these ideas. And, I never said anything close to "it means what I say it means." I was giving you the view of many Christians. I've associated with these people for years (mainly Protestants, but also many Catholics).

The morality of God appears to be a reflection of the people of the time who describe their God.

Lewis refers to "orthodox story" without troubling to make clear what that story is, where he gets it, or what its authority is — tim wood

I think that inaccurate. The PDF I cite - did you use it? - does not have the footnotes; but they are copious.

But I challenge it. — tim wood

I think it sufficiently "orthodox" - a pair of church fathers have already been cited as in agreement - that if you wish to challenge it, then we might leave it to you to present an account.

Further, I have invited you to read something with more care and attention that perhaps you're accustomed to... — tim wood

That made me laugh. I infer you have not had much to do with Sam.

The incorporation of the term gratuitous in Christianity is always met with incredulousness.

I think there is plenty of room on the same side for both of us. You and I both know that there are many people on the planet who call themselves Christian, but that are not. My local brand of such being Pentecostals and fundamentalists, who affirm God is an existing being. Christians don't do that, except informally or when speaking to children. Christians express their faith in terms of belief.

I did use the PDF. He referred to the "orthodox story." I skimmed looking for what that was and found no clarification. And thus the whole thing is about the bogeyman of an "orthodox story." And within 25 miles I can find probably one hundred or more seminary-educated preachers of whom, like farmers, the only thing two will agree upon is that a third doesn't know what he's doing.

My own view of what a Christian is, is defined by the Christian Bible and the original founders of the church, and perhaps a few others. That makes me and likely a lot of people a default sort-of Christian. The term I like is ethical Christian. Our shibboleth being that we cannot, do not, believe in the same way about the same things they believe in.

And glad to provide a laugh. No I have not had much to do with Sam.

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence. — Banno

Is it now? When someone believes s/he has the final solution (vide late Christopher Hitchens) to all our problems, rejecting it would be utter folly or, worse, siding with the devil, no? What would be an appropriate punishment for such wilful stupidity or evil?

Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship. — Banno

I think God is bluffing! We all say things we don't mean, especially for a good cause.

Bluff charge:

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence.
— Banno

Is it now? — Agent Smith

Well, yes. No finite offence, or conjunction of such offences, could possibly merit infinite punishment.

Well, yes. No finite offence, or conjunction of such offences, could possibly merit infinite punishment. — Banno

:ok: You're right. The offense & the punishment, if geometrized into a rectangle, the sides are not in the golden ratio (proportio divina). It looks ugly, can't be God's work or God has to be bluffin'.

The offense & the punishment, if geometrized into a rectangle, the sides are not in the golden ratio (proportio divina). It looks ugly, can't be God's work. God has to be bluffin'. — Agent Smith

:clap: Of course we don't actually know what god thinks about anything. At best we have claims by people and old books written by... people. God has been suspiciously absent.

We don't even know what heaven/hell is. Could be metaphors for a state of mind. Why do some Christians interpret eve and the talking snake as an allegory and then interpret lake of fire literally? The result is cherry picking as to what is literal or metaphorical. It's interpretation all the way down. There is no grounding, only different interpretations. Can't really discuss morality without specifying which interpretation and even then there is always wiggle room for further interpretation.

When someone believes s/he has the final solution (vide late Christopher Hitchens) to all our problems, rejecting it would be utter folly or, worse, siding with the devil, no? What would be an appropriate punishment for such wilful stupidity or evil? — Agent Smith

People should be punished for not believing someone who claims to have the solution???

Someone comes along, claiming to have the solution to all our problems -- and this alone should justify us believing this person, and if we don't, we deserve eternal punishment???

Do you even hear yourself?!


The gravity of the threat (or warning) or a solution doesn't mean that the threat/warning is about something that is actually true, or that the proposed solution is efficacious.

Whose beliefs are based on what? Feel-good love-dovey gut feelings.
— baker

On interpretations like anyone else. — Tom Storm

You don't actually know that. You have simply ruled out the possibility of God being what would usually be called "evil".

You don't actually know that. You have simply ruled out the possibility of God being what would usually be called "evil". — baker

I do know that. This is from first person conversations with many Christians I know who interpret the Bible in a liberal way. And there are many books that explore how this interpretation is more accurate - David Bentley Hart being one academic theologian in this space.

Secondly, I have never ruled out god is evil. In fact, I have argued this as a potential and realistic take in several threads, just not here. :smile:

Finally, all versions of god are interpretations. There is no interpretation free deity. Until the Great Mofo shows up, we have no knowledge of god other than 'some old book said a thing and this is what we think it means...'

if we subscribe to the Theory of Evolution, we must subscribe to Social Darwinism.
— baker

Why? Looks plain wrong to me. "Survival of the fittest" is not what evolution is about. — Banno

If you get to pick what to think about Christianity, Christians get to pick and choose what they think about evolution.

So the question is, what are we to make of their judgment? They choose to believe, not in the light of the evidence, but in the face of the evidence. They admire the worst conceivable torturer.

Such folk are ripe for manipulation. — Banno

Nah. Because:

Leaving that aside, is your point that good catholics, the pope included, do not actually believe the doctrine they espouse? That would indeed be a good thing. Would that they did not then feel obligated to pretend that they do, when dealing with events in the world. — Banno

I suspect such is the case generally among Christians. I've seen too many instances where Christians ridicule those who actually, really believe the doctrines, and even more so those who act accordingly.

The most plausible explanation seems to be that Christian doctrines, esp. the ones about eternal damnation, were devised as a means for combat, or at least that they function as sand thrown into the eyes of the enemy.

The strategy appears to be as folllows: Always present yourself as formidable and with powerful allies. Do whatever you can to make people fear you. This way, you will maximize your chances for success in the world.

Beliefs, in and of themselves, do not cause harm. So their beliefs are irrelevant.
— Pinprick

Indeed, with this i will pretty much agree. — Banno

Really? You can peacefully coexist with someone who believes you should be dead or suffer forever, and you know they believe thusly?

Finally, all versions of god are interpretations. — Tom Storm

No, you can't possibly know that, for empirical reasons, because you haven't investigated every theist that has ever lived.

The only way you could know that "all versions of god are interpretations" is if you were god, and could this discern what is merely an interpretation and what is actually the truth.

What do you find questionable about the common ideas of virtue? — Janus

Acting in line with them makes one a loser.

I find generic attacks inaccurate caricatures, treating religion as this monolithic belief system, as if they are all the same. — Hanover

Now that's a "generic attack".

The issue at hand is how to deal with those people who actually do believe in eternal damnation, or for whom we have reason to believe that they believe in eternal damnation (ie. people who declare to have an affiliation with a particular religion which has, as part of its doctrine, the doctrine of eternal damnation).

Roman Catholics, for example, are bound by their affiliation to the RCC to believe in eternal damnation, because eternal damnation is part of RCC doctrine. Even if occasionally, one can find Catholics who don't believe in eternal damnation.

The bottomline is that if someone professes affiliation to a particular religion, then we are justified to treat them as having assented to all the doctrinal points of said religion.

Religious individualism stops the moment someone declares affiliation to a particular religion.

I don't think one should judge a person based solely on one contemptible view that they have about a certain subject, since they may have other redeemable views or qualities. — Amalac

Jews should associate with Nazis?
Blacks should make friends with KKK members?
Women should pursue intimate relationships with misogynists?

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.
Christians hold that the person who inflicts this unjust punishment - God - is worthy of worship.
— Banno
I'm not sure Christians say or believe any of this. Cite? (Lots of people who call themselves Christians do say this, but they're not Christians.) — tim wood

And if we ask, "Who is a true Christian?", we shall be accused of a No True Scottsman fallacy?

No question that some - many - believe it, and many of those call themselves Christian. But I challenge it. Nor am I a defender of any faith, but I like accuracy and clarity. — tim wood

And for this, you shall burn! :fire::fire: :fire:

The only way you could know that "all versions of god are interpretations" is if you were god, and could this discern what is merely an interpretation and what is actually the truth. — baker

I see what you are trying to say here. Yes, you are probably correct, but how useful this frame is is moot. You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation. As far as humans are concerned, we can't say any more than to the best of our knowledge all accounts of god are interpretations. Call it a presupposition. We certainly have no way readily identifiable method for determining which interpretation is true (if any) so what does it leave us with?