Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

Post #1

Post by A Troubled Man »

TG123 wrote:
I'm not threatening you, I'm giving you some good advice. Take it or leave it.
TG123 wrote: ...God created both heaven and hell. Those who put their faith in Him will go to heaven, those who reject Him will go to hell. Yes, I believe God is moral in everything He does, so that would include in creating both hell and heaven.
Is the "advice" we get from believers threats or warnings regarding Heaven and Hell?

Is it moral or immoral for believers to reiterate their "advice" to others?

Would you conclude the "advice" is reason to reject any religion that offers it?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

A Troubled Man wrote: Is the "advice" we get from believers threats or warnings regarding Heaven and Hell?
IMHO, it's neither. It's just obnoxious arrogance. Sometimes clearly conscious and intentional, other times obviously unconscious and just reactionary to what the religion itself teaches people to believe. But it's obnoxious arrogance in either case.

A Troubled Man wrote: Is it moral or immoral for believers to reiterate their "advice" to others?
Not when they hold it out as if they know it to be truth. It's entirely a faith-based religion. Therefore to hold out their faith as though it represents some sort of established truth is actually quite dishonest. And being dishonest is supposedly immoral.

So all evangelists who preach to people that the things they claim are 'truth' are actually dishonest liars. If they had an once of honesty they would confess that this is merely something that they choose to believe as a matter of pure faith.

And as soon as it is recognized and confessed to be faith then the evangelism is over.

After all, what are they asking me to place my faith in?

They are asking me to place my faith in the hope that I'm at odds with my creator to such a extreme degree that my creator had to have his only begotten son butchered on a pole to pay for my hatred of God. :roll:

Why in the world would I ever want to place my faith in such a sick and perverted thing as this?

So once it is confessed to be nothing more than a faith-based hope, I can easily explain why I would never hope that such a horrible negative situation was the truth of reality.

And the evangelist is then dead in the water with nothing left but their own personal hope that they hate God so much that God had to have his only begotten son butchered on a Pole to pay for their disgusting unworthiness.

I honestly can't imagine why anyone would want to believe such a thing unless they are some sort of emotional masochist trying to spread emotional terrorism to others.
A Troubled Man wrote: Would you conclude the "advice" is reason to reject any religion that offers it?
I think that can depend on what the advice is.

My advice to Christians is that, IMHO, it's not healthy for them to hope that they hate God so much that he had to have his only begotten son butchered to pay for their disgusting unworthiness, and that it's even less healthy for them to go around lying to other people proclaiming that their faith-based hope in these ancient fables represents some sort of truth of reality.

Not only are they preaching that they hate their own God but they are also preaching that everyone should hate their God as much as they do. And they are actually being quite dishonest to claim to know that this is the truth of reality (if they do indeed claim that).

And like I say, the moment they confess to not know whether it's true, then all they have left is an extremely sick and disgusting hope that they are trying to get other people to hope for as well.

So my first question to any evangelical Christian is the following:

1. Do you know for certain that what you believe is true?

If they claim to know that it is true, I'll call them a liar right to their face and tell them to get lost.

If they confess the truth that they only believe it as a matter of faith themselves, then I'll ask the second question?

2. Why would you believe on pure faith that you hate God so much that he had to have his only begotten son butchered on a pole to pay for your disgusting unworthiness?

Over the years I've heard many different answers to this question when I ask it.

They range from people confessing that they actually did hate God and they had committed horrible crimes before they were "saved", but now they see the light and love God.

Well that may work for some people but I don't fall into that category so their experience has nothing to do with me. There was never a time in my life when I hated God, and I've never done horrible criminal things. So their life's experience has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

Other people will claim that they never hated God and that this isn't what the crucifixion is all about, blah, blah, blah.

To them I simply say, "Fine, but you still have a faith-based belief that I am not personally interested in wasting my faith on"

The whole Christian brainwashing scheme of trying to convince people that if they refuse to cower down to Christianity they are rejecting God, is IMHO, the most disgusting and dishonest religious scam ever created by mankind.

IMHO, no moral or righteous God would ever stoop as low as Christianity stoops.

Therefore it is my conclusion that Christianity cannot have anything at all to do with any moral God.

It's disgusting. And I make absolutely no apologies for pointing this out.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9864
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

Post #3

Post by Bust Nak »

A Troubled Man wrote: Is the "advice" we get from believers threats or warnings regarding Heaven and Hell?
Believers are repeating someone elses threat. The original is definitely threat. Weather the believer himself is meaning it as a threat or not is for him to know.
Is it moral or immoral for believers to reiterate their "advice" to others?
They may be moral in the sense of trying to stop us from getting hurt. Immoral in the sense of worshiping something that threaten us.
Would you conclude the "advice" is reason to reject any religion that offers it?
No. The only reason to reject anything is that it appears to be false.

A Troubled Man
Guru
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:24 am

Post #4

Post by A Troubled Man »

Thank you for those excellent posts, gentlemen. I would like to offer this explanation as it would appear to have great relevance...

"One common logical fallacy is argumentum ad baculum, which literally translated means "argument to the stick" and which is commonly translated to mean "appeal to force." With this fallacy, an argument is accompanied by the threat of violence if the conclusions are not accepted. Many religions are based upon just such an tactic: if you don't accept this religion, you will be punished either by adherents now or in some afterlife. If this is how a religion treats its own adherents, it's not a surprise that arguments employing this tactic or fallacy are offered to nonbelievers as a reason to convert. "

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismques ... lWrong.htm

connermt
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:58 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Threat or Warning? Moral or Immoral?

Post #5

Post by connermt »

A Troubled Man wrote:
TG123 wrote:
I'm not threatening you, I'm giving you some good advice. Take it or leave it.
TG123 wrote: ...God created both heaven and hell. Those who put their faith in Him will go to heaven, those who reject Him will go to hell. Yes, I believe God is moral in everything He does, so that would include in creating both hell and heaven.
1) Is the "advice" we get from believers threats or warnings regarding Heaven and Hell?

2) Is it moral or immoral for believers to reiterate their "advice" to others?

3) Would you conclude the "advice" is reason to reject any religion that offers it?
1) Most likely threats. Just like many believe that eternal damnation for honestly not believing is justifiable.
2) Depends on who is asked. Moral or not, it's annoying when it's unsolicited
3) No. The advice isn't really the issue. It's the people and how they deliver it.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9201
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Post #6

Post by Wootah »

Hell seems to me a logically necessary fact of a loving God existing that creates free willed creatures and those creatures choosing not God.

imagine a parent who says he loves you and then knowingly lets a peadophile live with you. You cant rationalise the parent as good. (or will someone try?)

i believe in hell like i believe i should warn someone when a piano is about to fall on them. if asking them to move is a fallacy then i submit the definition of the fallacy needs some work.

From the wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

An ad baculum argument is fallacious when the punishment is not meaningfully related to the conclusion being drawn. Many ad baculum arguments are not fallacies.[1] For example:
If you drive while drunk, you will be put in jail.
You want to avoid going to jail.
Therefore you should not drive while drunk.
This is called a non-fallacious ad baculum.

Philbert

Post #7

Post by Philbert »

Hell seems to me a logically necessary fact of a loving God existing that creates free willed creatures and those creatures choosing not God.
Of course a loving God could have provided an alternative to himself that was nicer than hell.

I'm really not sure how you squeezed "loving God", "logically necessary, and "hell" all in to one sentence. One of those has got to go.

You could toss logic out if you wanted, and still keep the loving God and hell.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9201
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Post #8

Post by Wootah »

Philbert wrote:
Hell seems to me a logically necessary fact of a loving God existing that creates free willed creatures and those creatures choosing not God.
Of course a loving God could have provided an alternative to himself that was nicer than hell.

I'm really not sure how you squeezed "loving God", "logically necessary, and "hell" all in to one sentence. One of those has got to go.

You could toss logic out if you wanted, and still keep the loving God and hell.
I argue that view incessantly - I have used it as a premise for my post in this thread. Why not rebut what I typed and see how you go?

Especially start with this part - imagine a parent who says he loves you and then knowingly lets a peadophile live with you. You cant rationalise the parent as good. (or will someone try?)

Philbert

Post #9

Post by Philbert »

Especially start with this part - imagine a parent who says he loves you and then knowingly lets a peadophile live with you. You cant rationalise the parent as good. (or will someone try?)
I don't get your point here. Are you saying God isn't good? Or?

Which part do you want to toss out? Choose one please....

1) Loving
2) Logic
3) Hell

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9864
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #10

Post by Bust Nak »

Wootah wrote: Hell seems to me a logically necessary fact of a loving God existing that creates free willed creatures and those creatures choosing not God.
There are alternatives, sustaining the material world as he is doing now indefinitely for example.
imagine a parent who says he loves you and then knowingly lets a peadophile live with you. You cant rationalise the parent as good. (or will someone try?)
But that is exactly what God is doing right now this very moment. Do you want to rationalise God as good?
i believe in hell like i believe i should warn someone when a piano is about to fall on them. if asking them to move is a fallacy then i submit the definition of the fallacy needs some work.
But that is not analogous to the situration here. The accurate analogy would be "warning" someone to move, and if they don't you'll drop a piano on them.

Post Reply