Well you're right about that, but nevertheless I would still be careful calling His punishment unjust...
For really, how could we know?

Well you're right about that, but nevertheless I would still be careful calling His punishment unjust...
For really, how could we know? — john27

I infer that you mean we cannot know if god's punishment is just because we are finite beings. Yet the fact that we are finite beings strongly indicates the injustice. We do not even have the capacity to act contrary to our nature, which is the very thing the Bible demands of us. We are sinful creatures by birth and are powerless to redeem ourselves. God has created us one way but commanded us to be another way. So we are doomed to eternal suffering for our very finitude, for our lack of comprehension. Does it seem just?

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". — Banno

Yes, there's a kind of "informed consent" argument available, although it can be said in response that we've been warned about eternal damnation. But I have no problem with what's said in Lewis' Divine Evil. I think intolerant, exclusive monotheism such as Christianity (with its one but oddly "triune" deity) necessarily condemns those who don't accept it to some form of punishment, extreme in its case.

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. — the catechism

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. — Ciceronianus

As I understand it, some theologians these days take the talk of fire and torment to be “picturesque” or “metaphorical”, and take hell to be the state of being turned away from god. The torturous language would be an attempt to capture the magnitude of the difference between union with god and whatever else you might get up to.

The part I never understood was why there’s a deadline — right up until your last breath on earth, you can do the right thing, but after that forget it.

That doesn’t make sense to me theologically, but it makes sense if your religion is not about eternity at all — no matter what it says — but is about how one ought to live. Of course, you could also adjust your understanding of eternity to something besides “a whole lot of time, in fact all of it, or all the rest of it”. For instance, you could take the idea of eternity itself a somewhat picturesque way of claiming that history is real. If you hurt someone, that moment of you hurting them never goes away, is permanent in itself, lasts forever as the moment you hurt them.

To see how you relate to eternity (in some TBD sense) as the essence of how you live, to have turned toward or away from god (in some TBD sense), that’s a whole different thing from the fairy tale Lewis is talking about.

Spinoza says that human beings conceive only two attributes: extension and thought. In Aristotelian terms: first and second substances. The things and the words. Spinoza added that God would conceive infinite other attributes. It is convenient not to believe that the human being is the most excellent being in the animal kingdom. Birds, for example, see much better than we do. We all have more pigment in the retina. In the case of owls, they can see clearly in very low light conditions. Therefore, it can be assumed that there are more things that can be perceived and conceived ... and we neither perceive nor conceive.
It is also wise not to attribute to Christians things that they would not intelligently admit. The religion of Jesus is a religion of mercy. Tomorrow you can be dead. Live honestly and freely, because today may be your last day. What the neighbor does or believes is none of your business. The true Christian lives for her/himself and without antithesis. sHe has no enemies. sHe forgives them. sHe even loves them: Love your neighbor as yourself! Saint Paul and his followers introduced other books into the religion of Jesus, ok, but the characteristic of an authentic Christian is that he does not demand anything of God. God doesn't even have to be good. Neither does her/his neighbor. It's up to you. Only you have to be good. Simple as that.

Move on. I answered it.

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

They assume God's got a really good reason they can't understand. Probably don't want to get tortured. It's kind of a hostage situation.

. The true Christian lives for her/himself and without antithesis. sHe has no enemies. sHe forgives them. sHe even loves them: — Primperan

I always get nervous when people talk of 'true Christians'. Under what authority can such a claim be made? A closer reading of the text? A better translation? A feeling?

Setting this aside, I wonder, if the above is true - does this mean that a 'true Christian' can never be in the armed forces or own a gun?

The real answer as I understand it from 'serious' believers as opposed to (mere) apologists is that God's justifications and authority are beyond us. Whatever indignation we might feel is quaint: we're to trust in God, and lean not on our own understanding.

The way the objection is framed assumes a kind of intellectual and moral hubris alien to the pre-modern world, and alien to much of contemporary religious life – it's not taken for granted that if we can't understand why something is right by our own moral standards, we are therefore allowed, or maybe even compelled, to condemn it based on that same understanding. That is, it was always taken for granted in religious life that God had reasons that were beyond us, and the tone of Lewis' objection, as with all new atheism (and especially that associated with Australia), is one that doesn't object to, but simply doesn't understand, the idea that there might be good reasons that one cannot understand.

I'm not defending this sort of world view (there are epistemological and moral problems with accepting the goodness of decisions you can't understand) – but it should be put in perspective that way. Modern people of the West, and this is particularly true of the English diaspora, have simply lost a mode of cognition that pre-modern people had, and so can't make sense of the morality contained, let's say, in Proverbs that leads to these sorts of conclusions. And so it strikes such people as ridiculous.

Because it is an infinite punishment for a finite transgression.


Think I might have mentioned that. Also, it's in the first few paragraphs of the article cited.

obviously god is not Christian. — god must be atheist

True. He obviously existed before Christianity did.

God would not pass the first test of morality based on empathy. Just like the OP said, except for a different reason. — god must be atheist

True, but I don’t see this in the OP.

For really, how could we know? — john27

It's not something you know so much as something you decide. What do you think - is eternal damnation a proper response to not loving someone?

Your answer tells us about you.

I think intolerant, exclusive monotheism such as Christianity (with its one but oddly "triune" deity) necessarily condemns those who don't accept it to some form of punishment, extreme in its case. — Ciceronianus

Indeed, intolerance is apparently inherent in monotheism. "Thou shalt have no other god before me" and so on.

...hell to be the state of being turned away from god. — Srap Tasmaner

A more thoughtful reply - thanks. For those who haven't noticed, the section on "Universal salvation" in the article, this idea of a deadline is discussed. There's "Content atheist that I am, my state of alienation from the deity is not one for which torment is an apt metaphor" in the discussion of the varieties of theism.

Your argument, Srap, might be distinct but seems to me to be open to the same criticism - it relies on denying (or perhaps a "divergent interpretation" of...) certain of the scriptures. It remains difficult to see how a finite number of transgressions merits a non-finite punishment, even when one attempt to consider those transgressions from an eternal perspective. Some act of faith is required, an act that by definition involves grasping at something that is not supported by the evidence.

So again I remain unconvinced.

...the characteristic of an authentic Christian is that he does not demand anything of God. — Primperan

So true Christians pay no heed to at least some of the doctrines of christianity. They are far less common than True Scotsman.

Sharing a meal with someone who is homeless is not the sole province of Christians.

Sharing a meal with someone who is homeless is not the sole province of Christians. — Banno

Indeed and I have met a number of devout Christians over the decades who think the homeless should be euthanized. I guess they are not true Christian/Scotsman...

It's not a true christian that describes but a good human.

There is no Christian monopoly on virtue.

So why the monopoly on not receiving eternal punishment?

They assume God's got a really good reason they can't understand. Probably don't want to get tortured. It's kind of a hostage situation. — Cheshire

Yep, the afore mentioned leap of faith, the unjustified conclusion, perhaps combined with what call the thug-god.

That's rather the point.

Modern people of the West, and this is particularly true of the English diaspora, have simply lost a mode of cognition that pre-modern people had, and so can't make sense of the morality contained, let's say, in Proverbs that leads to these sorts of conclusions. And so it strikes such people as ridiculous. — Snakes Alive

...or perhaps "Modern people of the West" have reached a point of not accepting conclusions based on insufficient and contradictory accounts.

This answer can also be related to @emancipate. I do agree with the both of you, but I still think it wouldn't be fair to call it unjust. Who knows? Maybe he has a killer argument for why He chose this Punishment. If the question isn't in relation to us, its really hard to assess things like good and evil.

Edit: Oh wait, it is in relation to us because it's attacking the worthy of worship bit. I missed that. Oops. My bad, sometimes I skim through the questions too quickly. If it demands whether He is worthy of worship to us, then yeah I would agree that it is unjust.

So true Christians pay no heed to at least some of the doctrines of christianity. They are far less common than True Scotsman. — Banno

I beieve the unique true Christian died on the cross

Sharing a meal with someone who is homeless is not the sole province of Christians. — Banno

You should read your own words. You characterized Christianity as a doctrine that condemns those who do not believe in God to hell. That was probably the orientation of Saint Paul. I have not said that the monopoly of doing good is the exclusive domain of Christians, but that you have a somewhat simple concept of Christianity. But Christianity is either a religion of mercy or it is nothing.

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? — Agent Smith

Some acts are considered immoral for entirely religious reasons. As modern secular people we are not so much inclined to accept religious reasoning about moral issues. As social beings anything which would disrupt social harmony to a significant enough degree would be naturally thought of as immoral, it seems to me. It's really a hugely complex issue shot through with all kinds of subtleties and nuances.

This answer can also be related to emancipate. I do agree with the both of you, but I still think it wouldn't be fair to call it unjust. Who knows? Maybe he has a killer argument for why He chose this argument. If the question isn't in relation to us, its really hard to assess things like good and evil. — john27

Sure. So what do we conclude from this - where does it lead us? We are left to make a decision that will have the utmost impact without sufficient information.

And it was god who set up this arrangement.

On this account god has behaved abysmally.

Or the christian account is incorrect.

You should read your own words. — Primperan

I do. Do you read yours? You would save god from being immoral by denying basic christian doctrine.

Jesus himself, according to scripture, speaks of eternal hellfire and damnation. You are doing what we in the trade call special pleading.

I have not said that the monopoly of doing good is the exclusive domain of Christians, — Primperan

That's not the point; it is the supposed monopoly on salvation, not charity, that lacks coherence. In question is the judgement of those who think an evil god worthy of worship.

And it was god who set up this arrangement.

On this account god has behaved abysmally.

Or the christian account is incorrect. — Banno

So it would seem.

There's folk as will give aid to the homeless, not because they wish to avoid torture, but because it is the right thing to do.

That was probably the orientation of Saint Paul. — Primperan

Christianity as a religion, as we know it, would not exist but for Paul of Tarsus. It's largely his creation, I think. There's no escaping him and his influence. Without him, it's likely it would have been a Jewish sect.

I doubt it. People's own propaganda about themselves is never right.

That's not to say I dislike the position of 'modern, Western people,' since I'm one of them and basically agree – but we shouldn't mystify ourselves with tired tropes about how we got wise to irrational and immoral beliefs (this is certainly untrue). Granted, my ethnic and philosophical stock is more Anglican / Catholic, and so even though I don't believe in the stuff, I was never constitutionally prone to any New Atheist sympathies, and so have never found this sort of moralizing against the past compelling. It's more interesting to ask honestly why we believe what we do, than to congratulate ourselves for believing it, is what I'm saying.

Do you include yourself in that?

This thread draws out rational conclusions from the common doctrine of christianity. One might address the arguments. or one might, as you do, scorn the process. But that is avoiding the discussion rather than engaging with it or accepting it.

Is that an appropriate response?