I am intimately familiar with the problems unshared faith can cause.

I don't know what solution you're proposing, and I'm not convinced it's relevant to this discussion.

Near as I can tell, DL and @Banno think maybe they can, you know, refute Christianity. With an argument. I mean ...

But why should I care? — Srap Tasmaner

Do you feel at peace living with people knowing that you cannot count on even the least common decency from them?

I don't know what solution you're proposing, — Srap Tasmaner

I don't have a solution, much to my dismay.

and I'm not convinced it's relevant to this discussion.

The OP says:

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

If you made the acquaintance of someone who thought highly of a person who tortured dogs as a hobby, would you befriend them? Ought you associate with them? — Banno

The OP says: — baker

I stand corrected.

I've been discussing the premises of this argument, not it's suggested conclusion.

I once watched an interesting video on YT involving Richard Dawkins, unfortunately I can't find which one it was but you should really watch some of his videos on atheism to get my point.

Richard Dawkins is an example of an atheist that passionately believes there is no God, this belief is what makes atheism a sort of religion.

I have nothing against atheists really, I respect their choice and way of life, but some seem like they're worshiping some sort of a God.

What I can't do is just condemn 1/4 of the species (or whatever it is) and leave it there. That's a dangerous mindset. — frank

Why? Could you elaborate?

That could be partly true but I don't think you need to understand a life to understand where it is objectionable. — Tom Storm

The problem is that it's objectionable per your standards (well, and those of your cronies, if you have them). Your standards are based on nothing but your gut feelings.

Someone who believes their standards are based on more than just their own gut feelings can object much more powerfully than you; they can make their objection matter, while you can't.

Maslow.'s criterion of happiness is "self-actualization" "being all you can be". It's akin to Aristotle's eudamonia and arete; not dependent on having a lot of money, material possessions or what others think of you. — Janus

But you can't get to self-actualization unless the previous stages/needs have been met, and meeting those (and the relative ease of meeting those) is a matter of socio-economic status.

Near as I can tell, DL and Banno think maybe they can, you know, refute Christianity. With an argument. I mean ... — Srap Tasmaner

Like I said earlier:
I think what Lewis is indirectly getting at is the unreflected, unprocessed, unnamed concern that one is living in a dangerous universe and that ultimately, one can't do anything about it.

Many people, religious or not, operate on the assumption that they should be free to live life as they see fit and that other people should not stop them in doing so, much less endanger them. They also operate on the assumption that having a moral code of their own should never be a liability or something that would come at a cost in terms of personal wellbeing and safety.

We can reconstruct that they have these assumptions from the way they respond to challenges to their personal wellbeing and safety.

You either are, or you are not. And to forestall objection, the alternative is that no criteria apply, and that a Christian (or pretty much anything else) is whatever anyone says it is, all contradictories included. — tim wood

Can you convince any other Christian of this? Including Jehowa's Vitnesses, and Baptists?

I have a cucumber on my counter that's a Christian. Can you convince me it isn't? Take a step back and consider what wrt the discussion your point is; and then tell me, because I'm not getting it.

Those people most plausibly Christian express their beliefs as beliefs. And among the things they believe in are the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. Believe being the key word, failure of which to understand is fatal to understanding Christianity. — tim wood

I actually agree with your definitions, Tim Wood; I am only concerned that other Christians have different opinions on what constitutes being a Christian. That's neither here, nor there (or either here, or there, as per your wish or desire stated earlier), as per myself.

I've heard Christians claim that I am Christian, because I had been Baptized. Which I have.

This seems to be the related paper: Divine Evil — Banno

I read the first few pages. The writer judges God by human lights and that is suspect from the beginning. The problem of evil is concerned with free will and while free will exists it is possible for people to misuse it. It is not that God punishes anyone - 'punishment', in scripture, seems more like a rhetorical admonishment, or warning, from God. But reality must be more complex than simple scripture can tell us. (the writer seems too literal about scripture)

The essence of the doctrine of The Fall is disobedience. And disobedience is its own punishment. You can see this any day of the week: the teenager is told, repeatedly, of the dangers of drug abuse. Does that deter him? Very often no. He will rebel and he will create his own hell on earth, because that is what hell is, our own creation. People create their own hell every day of the week.

But can't God show us how to live wisely so we won't turn our lives into hell? This is what religion is meant to do.

But people don't always listen. They want to live by their own lights even if that leads to hell. They will drink even if they risk ending up in the gutter. They will commit crimes even if that risks ending up in jail. God is the light by which we should live and if we turn away from it there is only darkness. Some are determined to go their own way. "My way or no way" - self will. No matter what the danger and no matter how many warnings "I will not serve". So be it.

I've heard Christians claim that I am Christian, because I had been Baptized. Which I have. — god must be atheist

And when you get to the pearly gates and Peter himself asks your warrant for presenting yourself, are you going to say that you're there because Joe the whackdoodle sent you? That is, claimed you were a Christian. What do you say (rhetorical question)? And why do you say it - in your heart of hearts? Because I think we all pretty much know what we are, and not only wrt religion, but all kinds of things.

I also baptized. But while I cannot claim to be a Christian, at the same time I buy a lot of what they're selling. Of course that makes me Jewish, too, doesn't it?

:up: There's an opening at my church for guest speakers.

And when you get to the pearly gates and Peter himself asks your warrant for presenting yourself, are you going to say that you're there because Joe the whackdoodle sent you? That is, claimed you were a Christian. — tim wood

That depends on what you mean by Christian. If by that you mean a person who lives according to God's Will - and indeed, if I live by God's Will - I guess I will have avoided many disasters and tears.

That depends on what you mean by Christian. — EnPassant

Well, isn't that the whole and entire point? And not just about being a Christian but instead about a lot of things? There either are, or there are not, criteria, by the measure of which, one either is, or is not, according to the criteria.

As to Christianity, might we agree there was a time in the world when there was no such thing? And then, following on some events, there were such? And some of those meeting and considering the matter, established criteria for being Christian? And just these having an original claim as to what being a Christian is and isn't?

And if not this, then the word itself become meaningless? And if meaningless, then my cucumber (from above) a Christian if I say it is?

:100:

That's an interesting observation, are you saying Jews or Muslims allow criticizing God more than Christians? — SpaceDweller

No. I didn’t say anything at all about Jews or Muslims or any other religious people. Nor was implying anything about them. The topic is about Christians, so that’s why I am talking about Christians.

As to Christianity, might we agree there was a time in the world when there was no such thing? — tim wood

The essence of Christianity is 'I am the Way.' The Tao is the way. So is Buddhism. Enoch, in genesis, 'walked with God'. There is a way of being and the way may have existed from the beginning.

Hmm. Nothing, then, to do with the Christ in Christianity. I think you're confusing Christian-like with Christianity. It's my take that many are Christian-like - and they not even knowing they are not Christian, thinking they are. And the shibboleth being belief, the Christian believing - and often enough knowing exactly what that means - what the rest of would aver, or would if we could, but with our clear scientific vision cannot.

As to Christianity, might we agree there was a time in the world when there was no such thing? And then, following on some events, there were such? And some of those meeting and considering the matter, established criteria for being Christian? And just these having an original claim as to what being a Christian is and isn't? — tim wood

I'm afraid the church is like a wagon that picks up a lot of sticky things on its wheels as it goes along. Christianity is full of pagan or useless ideas because some people like to decide what God wants before He even has a chance to tell them. One needs to be very discerning when it comes to what God wants of us.

What I can't do is just condemn 1/4 of the species (or whatever it is) and leave it there. That's a dangerous mindset.
— frank

Why? Could you elaborate? — baker

It sets the stage for immoral action. Any time you condemn a class of people, your unconscious, which holds all sorts of anger and frustration, will set on that class as deserving of punishment.

Then it only takes a weak moment and bad timing, and woops, you just committed an injustice and you should have known better.

Your response is becoming quite disjointed. What part, what whole? And as for

You attribute as characteristic of religion what also appears in political and sports rhetoric, — Primperan

What? Does hell come up often in the sports programs you watch?

I suspect you are taking standard arguments against atheism and applying them here. But this is different - there is a very particular topic and paper being addressed. The observation is simple, and strong. It is that those who accept eternal damnation are morally bankrupt. If that upsets you, you might better do some self-reflection rather than the tangential posts you are producing here.

Edit: this last applies to several other posters who have taken this thread as a general pro-atheist attack on god. It isn't. The observation here is quite specific: hell is immoral. The simple answer is that assuming god is good, then there is no hell, and various popular forms of christianity and other religions are simply wrong.

special pleading

The standard reply, repeated multiple times by various folk, is that the observation that hell is unjust does not apply to this or that special group of folk.

The thread has become a Christmas feast of special pleading.

The reply, found in the cited article, in my own posts and in those of a few others, is that even if there is such a group, there remain those who do worship a god who indulges in eternal punishment, and it is to them that the criticism is addressed.

Here's the article again. Read the last three paragraphs.

I don't read either the article, nor Banno's OP as an attempt to 'understand' why Christians think they way they do. — Isaac

Yep.

I find it odd that so many who profess not to be christian are so quick to jump to the barricades when they perceive an attack. Did you notice that?

If we were to follow @Srap Tasmaner's argument, we would be debarred from critique of any worldview unless we had been properly initiated into it's creed and understood it from the point of view of the true believer. I doubt he would apply this argument to Cartesianism, liberalism or Cricket, so again it is a form of special pleading.

Worldviews - I dislike the term - are not incommensurable, one with the other. We must be able to understand at least part of other views, in order to be able to recognise them as worldviews.

It is obvious to the point of tedium that christians will not be dissuaded from their belief by the arguments here. They are not the audience, either for Lewis' article or for this thread. That Srap supposes otherwise is just plain odd. It seems to be little more than a veiled ad hom directed at Lewis and myself.

Even if we imagine the extremes of a Christian entirely overcome by rapture, they will emerge with a deep and unshakeable faith that... — Isaac

Again, yes to this and what follows. Belief in hell has implications in terms of explaining the behaviour of the believer. Perhaps there is some potential to understand the cruel behaviour of so many who call themselves christian in understanding the cruelty inherent in their belief. How much of their behaviour can be explained as resulting from fear of damnation? ?

For my own part, it puzzles me that a religion supposedly founded on love of one's fellows can result in the Australian Christian Lobby, in the insanity of Texas abortion law, and the horrors of Canada's residential schools. Lewis may have identified the common thread.

It's not why they think what they think, so much as why they do what they do.

They are not the audience, either for Lewis' article or for this thread. — Banno

Got it. Good to know. Go ahead and explain everything. The world is your oyster.

The problem is that it's objectionable per your standards (well, and those of your cronies, if you have them). Your standards are based on nothing but your gut feelings.

Someone who believes their standards are based on more than just their own gut feelings can object much more powerfully than you; they can make their objection matter, while you can't. — baker

All you you seem to be saying here is that some people who believe that an old book says a thing think they have more authority than someone who challenges received opinion. They might object more powerfully me, sure, and still be wrong. My standards are based on humanism rather more than a gut feeling.

If we were to follow Srap Tasmaner's argument, we would be debarred from critique of any worldview unless we had been properly initiated into it's creed and understood it from the point of view of the true believer. I doubt he would apply this argument to Cartesianism, liberalism or Cricket, so again it is a form of special pleading. — Banno

I've tried, a little, to suggest how I think it's different from these examples. To me, faith seems to imply a meaning-world I am not privy to. I think believers experience the world quite differently from me. I think cricketers experience cricket different from how I would if I experienced it as a spectator, which I don't, but you get the idea. Some of that can be translated, with effort, but I'm not sure whether that's almost everything or quite a bit less. I do not know, for instance, how to see the natural world as created, and I can't imagine how people who do experience it.

It is obvious to the point of tedium that christians will not be dissuaded from their belief by the arguments here. They are not the audience, either for Lewis' article or for this thread. That Srap supposes otherwise is just plain odd. It seems to be little more than a veiled ad hom directed at Lewis and myself. — Banno

It's worth mentioning, in a sort of defense of Lewis's argument, that a great many Christians are uncomfortable with the traditional teaching on hell that Lewis takes aim at. It's not hard to find well-known Christian authors and theologians who have struggled with the idea, including at least one Catholic priest I used to know. I think I've known people who left the church (if not religion altogether) over this exact issue.

It is indeed a tough one, and many Christians consider themselves Christian despite deep misgivings about the concept of hell.

There are 2 kinds of atheists, those who don't believe in God and those who believe there is no God, they are a sort of believers.

You see, those who believe there is no God will defend atheism and sometimes attack those who believe in God, while those who just don't believe don't give a sh* about what believers believe, they simply don't believe God exists.

Therefore if you ever see someone "revenging" at atheists, it must be defense of their own faith rather than attacking atheists. — SpaceDweller

Atheism is a bit more nuanced than this.

From American Atheists:

"Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods."

I am an atheist about gods in the same way as I lack belief about the Loch Ness Monster. There is no compelling reason for belief. But I do not say that Nessie does not exist. That would be making a positive claim.

I think believers experience the world quite differently from me. — Srap Tasmaner

Well chosen words. Believers do not experience a different world. We have, therefore, some basis for discussion.

I submit that we are in a position to judge the notion of eternal damnation, and do find it wanting. On this at least we might agree.