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? — Banno

But Banno... surely it's just the translation!? If we knew God's real intention as expressed in the Greek, it wouldn't be 'infinite torture' it would be more like 'endless torment'.... oh... never mind. :worry:

I don't think you can make the generalization that the people who worship the Christian God, for example, have a diminished character. — Sam26

Sometimes the obvious does need to be stated, so than you for stating it. Thanks also for taking some time to understand the argument and the personality of the philosopher involved. Few others appear to have done as much.

...that what is meant by just or unjust, good and evil, is based on God himself. — Sam26

and

...God has good reasons which are unknown to us... — Sam26

What are we to make of this argument? For we are asked to decide in god's favour or against him. In the article Lewis points out a few times that god has forced our judgement to be made with insufficient information, yet at unimaginable cost.

See also my reply to @laura ann, above.

So I don't see either of these defences of god as viable. They depend on our having faith, what the church fathers describe as believing despite the evidence. To be sure, many consider this to be the highest good - it seems to be pivotal to Islam, the very name meaning "submission". There is indeed much to question concerning the logic of such beliefs.

You have captured the apologists reply perfectly.

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. — dimosthenis9

Ah, is that all? So stop trying to convince me of things I already hold to be so, and we might have more productive discussions.

:wink:

I see Lewis' point

The rest of my comment was given to show that generations of reactions to such declarations has also become what is 'Christian.'

That is not apology. I have my own objections as someone who wants to see things a certain way. Who knows, maybe you are right; No good can come from these beginnings.

But the assumption that this point of doctrine includes all who understand themselves to be Christian is a self-fulfilling prophecy. That will be all that you see.

There is at least one, I think, original argument presented in the text. It's at page 234, and involves the area in which he is most well known, counterfactuals. I is in his first reply to those who might hold that god is not morally responsible for damnation because he wished to "create a world in which incompatibilist freedom was found".

Lewis invites us to consider two possible worlds. In the first, actions are somehow physically determined. In the second, actions are freely chosen. Yet in both possible worlds, the exact same events occur. Then he asks: "Why should we think of the second world as a great advance on the first?"

This is a cut-down version fo the argument. I encourage you to read it in situ.

I tend to agree with Lewis that there is no significant difference in value between these two worlds. So over to those who would defend their "favourite incompatibilist account" to explain the difference.

But the assumption that this point of doctrine includes all who understand themselves to be Christian is a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Paine

Neither I nor Lewis assumed such a thing.

The issue here is as to the puzzling inconsistency of certain common doctrines.

Then I must not have grasped the nuance of this seemingly unqualified statement:

So what is one to make of the moral character of folk who hold someone who tortures folk unjustly in the highest esteem?

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

Here's a way of looking at it that, to me, weakens if not completely destroys Lewis' argument of disproportionate punishment compared to the offense.

What does it mean to not believe in God? That's the million dollar question. To renounce one's faith seems to be and is presented as an innocuous act; after all the atheist is still moral and that's what counts.

My hunch is theists (here Christians) treat belief in God to be the keystone of morality; remove it and morality collapses like a house of cards. So, in what capacity does God function in our moral lives? As a moral law-giver, as an all-seeing moral cop, as a judge. God's basically a legal system, purportedly perfect.

What happens if you reject i.e. defy the legal system? Chaos or, in theistic terms, hell (on earth). I've heard of many legends/stories about how allegedly evil people (atheists number among them) want to open a gateway to hell through which demons can enter earth and wreak havoc! I guess this is what theists fear the most. The penalty for atheism then has to be eternal hellfire! An eye for an eye! Proportionate but barbaric!

Basically, if you want to create (maximum) mayhem, go experience maximum mayhem! See how you like it!

It starts to make even more sense.

Sometimes the obvious does need to be stated, so than you for stating it. — Banno

I have a knack for stating the obvious. :grin: I do it often. It helps keep us grounded.

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. — Banno

I don't think it's necessary or even practice to worship god on moral grounds. You worship god if you are a Christian because he is a big thug, who can hurt you something fierce, and he says: "Worship me, cretin!" Then what are your choices? He don't even need to say "or else" but he does, just to make sure that the feebler in minds understand him too.

No, god is not worshipped for his behaviour of moral disleptitude. He is worshipped because he is big, fearsome, and he asks you to do this small favour for him already.

he is a big thug — god must be atheist

I took it as given that this was part of the OP.

I took it as given that this was part of the OP. — Tom Storm

Tom Storm: you are picking on me.

Of course it was part of the OP.

And it is part of my post.

So far so good.

But you said that in a manner, that indicated that my post was not of merit.

For your information, I noticed that there are other, incongruent parts between the posts, which you so conveniently ignored for the sake of taking potshots at me and my post.

This is not the first instance you are doing this. Please stop this.

I complained about other posters doing the same things to me. You don't appear to be so vicious and vindictive, but you are consistently trying to undermine my opinions with invalid ways of invalidating them. I resent that.

The authorities asked me to report such instances, and as an immediate measure, to ignore the posts of those who criticize me on illogical grounds, supposedly due to personal dislike.

They advised me to laugh it off.

I don't find that a satisfactory way of responding to those who dislike me and due to their dislike they try to undermine my existence.

So please stop your habit of picking on me.

So please stop your habit of picking on me. — god must be atheist

I just respond to ideas that I agree with, that require clarification, or those which might be seen differently. Often I don't even look who said it. I have no awareness of thinking you were particularly obtuse but I will read back over my responses to check.

Okay. How did you miss the difference in the role that "he is a thug" played in my post and in the OP, and subsequent posts by Banno?

1. He states that Christians worship god although god is not worthy of worship. He valuates this as moral failure on the part of God-worshipping Christians.
2. I stated that Christians may be worshipping god because of fear of retaliation, not because they esteem god worthy of worshipping.

You only sensed (according to your post which I called "invalidating" mine) that we both said, Banno and I, that god is a thug

You ignored the other parts, which comprised the difference. Why did you ignore it? In my opinion you ignored it to pick on me. If that is not true, then I wish to hear from you why you appear as if you did not comprehend that important difference.

I don't get into interpersonal scraps on line, sorry GMBA. When I respond, have something to say in return or, if you don't like it, ignore it.

Acting in line with them makes one a loser. — baker

O loser of what?

You seem to be conflating moral injunctions and the law.

You seem to be conflating moral injunctions and the law. — Janus

Is there a crime that isn't immoral?

Perhaps not, but there are acts which are considered by some to be moral infractions which are not illegal; so there is no equivalence.

Perhaps not, but there are acts which are considered by some to be moral infractions which are not illegal; so there is no equivalence. — Janus

Like lying to your friend about why you didn't show up at her b'day bash. There's perjury though, a legal equivalent. Also, gluttony ain't a crime but it's immoral. Sloth too isn't a criminal offense but it can land you in a legal bind sometimes.

I agree, the equivalence isn't perfect but it ain't completely off the mark either.

Could we discuss this matter? Why are some immoral acts not crimes? Perhaps because they aren't ones that endanger other people's health, life, and property. It appears that morality is an even more restrictive (oppressive?) set of rules than the law. It doesn't make sense to talk of Draconian laws then, right?

I (think) I know what's going on. For a theist (Christian in our case), rejecting god

1. Is equivalent to spurning morality (you might as well call grow horns, a pointy tail, and call yourself Satan).

2. Is an insult, a theist's identiy and self-worth may have a lot to do with the faith he's part of. Atheism, in this sense, is an existential threat!

3. Left to the reader as an exercise.

Ergo, atheism bad, very bad! Go to hell, atheist scumbag!

On a more serious note, it's obvious that if theists feel hell is just punishment for atheism, there's something infinitely bad about denying God or eternity is finite!

Our task then is to find out how

1. What's so frigging, infinitely, bad about atheism?

2. How infinite (eternity) is actually finite?

Clues/false leads:

3. God is, I'm told, $\infty$ itself. So to revoke your belief in God is to negate the existence of infinity. Does that mean you need to be shown what infinity is in every sense of that word: subjective time dilation (pain) + actual eternity [the ultimate $\infty$ experience]. No contradiction.

4. Infinity is finite. Contradiction...or not! Infinity is fiction/imaginary. Goto step 3.

Either way, the atheist must experience $\infty$ i.e. God himself. Hell is not a punishment. It's a one-to-one with $\infty$...er...I mean God. Rest easy atheists!

I don't get into interpersonal scraps on line, sorry GMBA. When I respond, have something to say in return or, if you don't like it, ignore it. — Tom Storm

Thank you, that makes me feel better. Thanks.

So, accordingly, I must ask you again, now that we cleared the air on what was likely my misconception:

Why did you not take into account that Banno and I were saying deeply different things, despite we both used the idea that the Christian god is a thug, so to speak? Banno sees this as a reason to view Christians who revere god as morally failing; I see them as intimidated people who worship out of fear, not out of reverence or admiration for their god.

Banno sees this as a reason to view Christians who revere god as morally failing; I see them as intimidated people who worship out of fear, not out of reverence or admiration for their god. — god must be atheist

I saw Banno's OP as making that point too hence:

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

I generally hold that these two are foundational and abundantly obvious to most discussions of Christian belief. The first key moral failing of God being his protection racket Mafia boss approach.

I generally hold that these two are foundational and abundantly obvious to most discussions of Christian belief. The first key moral failing of God being his protection racket Mafia boss approach. — Tom Storm

I agree. However, I notice that you failed to answer the question I asked. How could you not see that this very one and the same component is used to treat the problem differently? How did that escape you? Why did you have to point out the obvious, and not refer to the not-so-obvious? Why do you feel compelled to point out what is or should be obvious to all, as an insight that you must show me because, by implication, I did not see that? Obviously I saw that, as I used it in my argument. So why pound on the obvious that all know? And show that to me as a lesson on something as if I hadn't realized that?

Please answer these questions instead of repeating the obvious yet a fourth time. The main question I wish to hear from you answered, is why you ignored the difference of treatment of the same component in Banno's and my posts? Did you not see that, or not comprehend that, or??? I am at a complete loss of why you put the post, other than to make me feel uncomfortable.

Now that you declared it was not personal, the question grows in its magnitude: then why did you put that post, since it only seemed to have one purpose, which was to needle me, but yet you claim your intention was not that?

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. — Banno

Perhaps, but I did read the article. I think "demonising" is a fairly accurate characterisation. Generally, in my examination of any religious tradition, i like to back to the founder's words rather than those of later functionaries of the bureaucracy.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. — Matthew6:18

This is about as condemnatory as Jesus gets, and even on the cross was forgiving. How one gets from the loving father of Jesus to the hateful antics of some 'followers' is by the same process that one gets from the Marx's
withering away of the state to Putin. An overwhelming infection with self-serving bullshit, and a passion for organising and control run riot.

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. — Banno

This I agree with. And there is no shortage through the millennia, but it is a continuous betrayal of Christianity as characterised by the words and deeds of Jesus.

This is about as condemnatory as Jesus gets — unenlightened

Well, two lines later he says :

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. — Mathew 18:8

So there's that. I remain unconvinced.

The Christian habit of self-mutilation and amputation is abhorrent. "It wasn't me, it was my hand." they always say.

I remain unconvinced. — Banno

Me too.

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

How do we know that the punishment is unjust?

How do we know that the punishment is unjust? — john27

It just seems a little disproportionate. Love and worship me or else I'll kill you... Forever.