You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation. — Tom Storm

Then how do you know it's an interpretation?

We certainly have no way readily identifiable method for determining which interpretation is true (if any) so what does it leave us with?

Transcendental dread. Probably the original aim of hellish doctrines.

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

No, fool. We shall simply inquire as to what a Christian is, and under what authority. Being satisfied along those lines, we ask whether the folks in question are Christian by that standard. And not withstanding what anyone says or claims or interprets, they either are, or they are not. No Scotsman needed.

We shall simply inquire as to what a Christian is, and under what authority. Being satisfied along those lines, we ask whether the folks in question are Christian by that standard. And not withstanding what anyone says or claims or interprets, they either are, or they are not. — tim wood

IOW, set ourselves up as the judges over other people's religious identity.

A man holding a book that I imagine he has neither read not would understand if he did. So what?

IOW, set ourselves up as the judges over other people's religious identity. — baker

I begin to suspect you're crazy. Where does your thinking come from? People say all kinds of things, but saying alone never makes it so, right? Being a Christian - or anything - is not settled merely because a person says he is. If that, then a Christian - or anything else - is whatever anyone says it is, whenever it pleases them to say it. Is that how you understand that world to operate when its operating reasonably well?

You also don't know if there is a god to match any given interpretation.
— Tom Storm

Then how do you know it's an interpretation? — baker

How do you know it is not an interpretation?

It is true that people have used the arguments of justification to support terrible acts. Christianity became a dominant idea through violence, both physical and rhetorical.

The Christain idea also brought up various renouncements of that power. The element of personal testimony has long since been a thorn in the sides of dogma, however it is expressed.

Outside of saying what happened versus what did not happen in history, the arguments between sincere belief are our inheritance.

So, are you arguing that such discussion is no longer necessary? The past is a mistake and the future is ours?

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

I don’t think anyone said they believe I should be dead or suffer forever. They simply believe that is what will happen if I do not change my ways. It’s God’s will, not necessarily theirs. So long as they’re “good Christians” they will also love their enemy (me) as themselves and love their neighbor. If they’re consistent with their adherence to Christianity they’ll at most pity me, and perhaps try to convert me. Sure, I can live with that.

Jews should associate with Nazis?
Blacks should make friends with KKK members? — baker

Someone has to take the first step towards change. Treating others with permanent disdain does nothing positive. Daryl Drake is a great example of what I’m getting at.

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment.
— Banno

No they don't. There is indeed a portion of Christian fanatics who might believe this but the main majority don't.
There are even more Christians who believe that God judge people by their acts not just their belief to him. I don't know how you or David Lewis get that.

Except if the thread is about that minority of Christians who believe this thing. If so, fine. — dimosthenis9

You have to go to the Bible, the New Testament in particular, to find the answer.

The punishment for those who don't become Christians -- whatever your definition of it is -- is eternal death. Not eternal punishment in horrible torture in the bowels of the Earth in Hell. No. That is a myth. It's in the Bible. You just have to read the words carefully.

I mean, some of the words. There are two different passages between which there is actual discrepancy.

And what's so horrible about eternal death? Nothing. It's infinitely better than eternal life.

So god actually rewards disobedience and civil unrest.

So long as they’re “good Christians” they will also love their enemy (me) as themselves and love their neighbor. If they’re consistent with their adherence to Christianity they’ll at most pity me, and perhaps try to convert me. Sure, I can live with that. — Pinprick

obviously god is not Christian. He is not a Christian because he does not love his own enemies. Love is NOT sending someone to hell for all eternity.

A typical case of hypocrisy. "Do as I say, don't do as I do." Back to morals: God would not pass the first test of morality based on empathy. Just like the OP said, except for a different reason.

There are two different passages between which there is actual discrepancy. — god must be atheist

Well in fact there are many passages in Bible which there is discrepancy. That's why there are so many different "versions" of Christianity. Cause many Churches give different "translations" of Bible. As in any other religion also.

The punishment for those who don't become Christians -- whatever your definition of it is -- is eternal death. — god must be atheist

I have heard that too. Some Christians believe it also. But from my personal experience most Christians believe God will give a second chance to atheists and people who believed in other religions.

And what's so horrible about eternal death? Nothing. It's infinitely better than eternal life. — god must be atheist

Well I think most people would still "vote" for eternal life though. At least a "paradise life" that God promises to them. Doesn't sound that bad.

is your point that good catholics, the pope included, do not actually believe the doctrine they espouse? — Banno

Only a philosopher could believe such nonsense. It is like the suggestion that the Germans ate babies or that martyrs will be rewarded with virgins - something said to encourage the troops.

This thread is unworthy of you. Demonising religion is as easy as demonising capitalism or communism, and almost as productive. Thank no one we are so fucking righteous and sensible!

Ought we associate with people who keep dragging out the dead horse of organized religion to use as a punching bag to further our philosophical "enlightenment"?

Demonising religion is as easy as demonising capitalism or communism, and almost as productive. — unenlightened

Well, all three subjects remain dominant narratives worthy of continuing robust exploration and criticism. It's not as if the matters are settled. One person's demonising is another's bone fide exploration...

Having known a good many Catholics, I have discovered that it is actually the case than some of them don't believe in God or the doctrines they espouse. It's a fairly common phenomenon. In fact, many clergy do not believe in god - but it's all they know and the community remains important to them. It's not that they are deliberately doing harm, they just don't believe. There is even an international support group, The Clergy Project set up to help these folk.

the dead horse of organized religion — Tzeentch

Ah, if only it was dead! Or a horse.

The interesting variation here is that the argument asks us not to consider the morality of such an evil god, but of those who consider him worthy of praise or worship. — Banno

“An evil god” according to what principles? I’m always interested to know where people acquire their rules of what is good and evil.

Obviously Christians don’t believe that their God is an evil god so worshipping him isn’t a problem for them. David Lewis, both doesn’t believe in the Christian god and finds him evil and therefore has a problem with the morality of those who do believe in him.

But what is evil and what is moral or immoral, just or unjust? We know what Christians use to answer these questions (biblical texts, the church etc) but where does David Lewis get his definition of right and wrong, good and evil, just or unjust? And how does he know he’s right and Christians are wrong?

I just listened to the podcast that you provided about Lewis and his thinking. I think it's reasonable to ask the questions Lewis asked, I've asked these questions myself. However, I think it's more complicated than just seeing God as evil, and then wondering about all the people who worship this God - i.e., what does it say about the character of these people? I've been around Christians from many denominations and their moral characters vary just as widely as do the moral characters of any group. I don't think you can make the generalization that the people who worship the Christian God, for example, have a diminished character. No more than you can generalize about the moral characters of people who believe in communism, or any other ism. Moreover, many of these people have thought through some of these issues, and do provide a rationale of sorts to themselves and others. One rationale, which I do not in any way find convincing, is that what is meant by just or unjust, good and evil, is based on God himself. We don't determine the sense of these words, God does. It's goes to the divine command theory or something close to it. Moreover, you can always escape some of these questions by saying that God has good reasons which are unknown to us, or some interpret the Bible in a way that helps them deal with these questions.

There have been other types of answers that go to God's infinite nature, how are we even capable of judging whether God is just or unjust, etc, given our limited view of the infinite. Other Christians argue that hell is not forever, that it's for a given period of time, and their are levels of punishment that fit the offense, so it's not as straight forward as one might suppose. And, to answer such a questions requires much more of a study of the psychology of belief, the logic used in thinking about such beliefs, and the conceptual framework these people work within. I don't think it's a simple thing to answer, and we have to be careful about making such sweeping generalizations.

Cheers.

“An evil god” according to what principles? I’m always interested to know where people acquire their rules of what is good and evil. — laura ann

Not really. It's pretty easy to see where the idea of an evil god comes from. The Old testament reveals a thuggish, vengeful god who supports slavery, genocide, rape and frequently behaves as a mass-murdering Mafia boss. People have been pointing this out for a long time and, as Isaac Asimov and others have pointed out, one of the surest pathways into atheism is reading the Bible.

Not really. It's pretty easy to see where the idea of an evil god comes from. The Old testament reveals a thuggish, vengeful god who supports slavery, genocide, rape and frequently behaves as a mass-murdering Mafia boss. People have been pointing this out for a long time and, as Isaac Asimov and others have pointed out, one of the surest pathways into atheism is reading the Bible. — Tom Storm

I don’t think you understand my questions, Tom. I’m asking how David Lewis determines and defines what is good and what is evil, just or unjust, right and wrong.


(While I am aware of the many different interpretations of the Old Testament, I’m not at all interested in debating them.)

I don’t think you understand my questions, Tom. I’m asking how David Lewis determines and defines what is good and what is evil, just or unjust, right and wrong.


(While I am aware of the many different interpretations of the Old Testament, I’m not at all interested in debating them.) — laura ann

OK. I don't read very closely. Sorry. Yep, there is no point debating what is abundantly clear. Agree with you.

OK. I don't read very closely. Sorry. — Tom Storm

:rofl: I don’t read all that closely either, no worries!

Let's take as an illustration two notable christian philosophers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine: — Amalac

Thanks for this. Those who have claimed that belief in hell is not central to Christianity would do well to consider your post.

If they would make the claim that Christian doctrine has changed over time, or that these two Church Fathers did not mean what they said, then there is significant further explanation needed. Changes in morality over time are prima facie incompatible with what is right being what god wills. It looks as if what is right changes along with human sentiment, such that what was once considered acceptable no longer is.

If they would make the claim that Christian doctrine has changed over time, or that these two Church Fathers did not mean what they said, then there is significant further explanation needed. Changes in morality over time are prima facie incompatible with what is right being what god wills. It looks as if what is right changes along with human sentiment, such that what was once considered acceptable no longer is. — Banno

It does work that way indeed. Christianity as every other religion changes over time and its "translation" too. Following the humanitarian morality process.

And that's exactly the reason that in other threads, that we debated about Christianity and God, I try to convince you that it is just a human invention. Nothing more at the end. Don't blame religions(or any specific religion even worse) for all human disasters, blame people that are steal "weak" - as to live without religions.

So yes, of course religions doctrine will follow-transform according to human morality in general.
You can't examine it as a stable thing and being aphoristic to it all together! It is a "living thing". It progress and changing.

We have to see the bigger picture here! As every religion it is people who hold the wheel.And that's why we will see even more different doctrine from Christian Church in the future.Religions if they want to stay "alive", they have to "transform". See the rhetoric that Pope uses nowadays for example.

As for the article, though Lewis does have some points and presents them really vividly. He still does the same mistake I think. He starts his points from a total false base. Imo at least.

Let's take as an illustration two notable christian philosophers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine:
— Amalac

Thanks for this. Those who have claimed that belief in hell is not central to Christianity would do well to consider your post.

If they would make the claim that Christian doctrine has changed over time, or that these two Church Fathers did not mean what they said, then there is significant further explanation needed. Changes in morality over time are prima facie incompatible with what is right being what god wills. It looks as if what is right changes along with human sentiment, such that what was once considered acceptable no longer is.
an hour ago — Banno

To know the official view of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on hell, you need only consult the Catechism (as to the heretical Protestant communities, who can say what those people think). You'll find hell addressed in Part One, Chapter Three, Article XII, IV (I've deleted footnote references, and have used italics to emphasize those portions of the text which may used to support the position that God is really a swell guy, hell notwithstanding):

"1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." BUT WAIT! The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance."

See? Hell isn't God's problem, it's ours. If that's where we end up, it's our fault. And okay, maybe there's some fire there, but the real punishment is "eternal separation from God" so the fire can't be that bad.

It's true that God sounds quite needy. He just wants to be loved. It's an odd thing for an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being to be needy, I'll admit, but just the same. Hell apparently is the fury of a God scorned.

Interesting. I do have a Catechism somewhere, I should dig it out. Thank you for your efforts.

The commonest reply here is that Christians do not actually believe in hell. This is actually addressed in the article, and I await someone addressing Lewis' response, which is that such folk are not following explicit Christian doctrine. You have justified the surprising claim, explicated most clearly by @tim wood, that somehow this is not Christian Orthodoxy. It's addressed and dismissed int he section titled "Varieties of Theism". Hell as separation from god is addressed - it doesn't seem to qualify as hell, or if it does qualify as hell, it does not get god off the hook of injustice. This is a recurring counter to those who say hell is our own choice, since god still forces upon us a "choice I was forced to make in ignorance".

It is true that people have used the arguments of justification to support terrible acts. — Paine

Sure, but this is not what is in question here. Rather, it is that Christians believe god punishes those who displease him with eternal torture; that this is unjust; that nevertheless Christians consider God worthy of worship; and that hence Christians show themselves to be of poor moral character.

This thread is unworthy of you. — unenlightened

Lewis is one of the most interesting philosophers of the last fifty years. His astute yet eccentric analysis of smalltalk, of conventions, and the argument that the analysis of imprecise concepts should be imprecise, is world class. Of course he is most well known for his dealings with counterfactuals, and for modal realism, but he touched an most areas of philosophy.

It is disappointing that you dismissed his article so offhandedly. Perhaps the trite nature of most of the replies here, which do not address the article, has misled you into thinking the article itself trite. That would be an error.

“An evil god” according to what principles? — laura ann

Well, yours and mine, if you like. I say a god who inflicts infinite torture for finite offences is not worthy of worship. What say you?

Ethical relativism be damned; if you defend such a villain, your moral judgement is questionable.