Should unbelievers be punished? Why?

[unknown soldier]

Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim? In what way is skepticism regarding the claims of Christ morally wrong?

[bjs1]

Questions are built on lines of reasoning. That reasoning can be valid or fallacious. These “two very simple questions” are examples of the Complex Question (or Loaded Question) fallacy.

This does not apply here, there are no assumption in those questions that would invalid the questions. There is no assumption that people are punished for not believing.

So your theory is that the question “Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim?” does not include the assumption of people being punished for not believing? That contradict logic, reason and the basic meaning of the words. How have you come to this conclusion?

A person can ignore a warning if he don’t feel that it is a sensible warning. If that warning proves to be true, then he will suffer the natural consequences of ignoring the warning.

You can still ask the question, should that person suffer the consequences of ignoring the warning.

There are settings when the question of should can be asked. The way it was done here is the fallacy of equivocation.

That’s fine. It just reveals fallacy behind your questions because you have applied your cultural norms or personal tastes to the concept of a God that is outside of all human cultures or tastes.

But you are not outside of human cultures or tastes - the questions were posed to you, not God.

The question may be posed to me, but it is about God.

You "simple questions" about punishment do not accurately reflect the complexity of Christian belief or life in general.

Neither is your response. In (mainstream) Christianity, heaven is not presented as a reward for for a life of righteousness.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe I have not accurately reflected that complexity. That doesn’t undo the fallacies of this thread.

It does not make sense to reduce a Creator's take on virtue to an opinion. It would be like saying that a composer has only an opinion about which note should come next in a symphony.

It does not make sense to you because you are coming from the perspective of an objectivist. A composer has only an opinion about which note should come next in a symphony makes perfect sense to me as a subjectivist.

Correct. So as long as no one is asking a question about a God who, at least in concept, is outside of time and culture then there would be no problem. This question is about such a God, and hence reveals the fallacy of equivocation. It takes the ethics of a subjectivist and applies them to objectivism.

You can be a subjectivist. You cannot rationally apply subjectivist ethics to the Christian concept of God, which is what this thread has attempted to do.

[1213]

…Yes, why believe any of that? If unbelief incurs no chance of punishment, then I need not fear the Bible God and his violent wrath.

Yes, I don’t think your disbelief will be reason for the wrath. But, if you are unrighteous and evil, then there may be reason to fear wrath. Bible tells eternal life is for righteous and unrighteous don’t have that. So, in the Bible, the crucial thing is, is person righteous or not.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

… We both know better than to do such crazy things.

Why do you think it would be crazy?

[1213]

...
Well, the quote we were discussing has Jesus saying he didn't come to judge and Revelation later has him judging. Pretty simple and clear, don't you think?

I have understood people are basically already judged, but that what was judged, has not yet been delivered. In the end Jesus will deliver what everyone has gained.

[unknown soldier]

Questions are built on lines of reasoning. That reasoning can be valid or fallacious. These “two very simple questions” are examples of the Complex Question (or Loaded Question) fallacy.

Questions need not be based on lines of reasoning. A line of reasoning is a series of statements that are logically connected to reach a conclusion. Questions are rarely if ever structured that way; my questions, for instance, were not set up that way. I simply requested information.

Probably the most famous example of this kind of false reasoning in a question is to ask someone, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” These questions follow that pattern in that they are built on false assumptions.

If I knew you had beaten your wife, then I'd be fully justified in asking you if you were still beating her. And you are correct--a loaded question is based on an assumption that is often an unfounded assumption. In my (I hope hypothetical) example, I was correct in assuming you had beaten your wife, so the assumption in my question was not false. The question was perfectly appropriate.

So we finally get back to my questions. There are no false assumptions in them. I know based on what I've read in the Bible and what Christians have told me that unbelief is a punishable sin.

Anyway, I should point out that I've just spent a lot of time explaining something that I should not have needed to explain. If you deny that unbelief is a punishable sin according to the Bible and Christian theology, then you are quite ignorant of what your own religion and your own Bible says very clearly.

A person can ignore a warning if he don’t feel that it is a sensible warning. If that warning proves to be true, then he will suffer the natural consequences of ignoring the warning.

Sure. If a legitimate warning is ignored, then the person ignoring it may well suffer the consequences. We all make mistakes. However, it's still wise to use one's head when being warned about a supposed danger--heeding the warning, like I've already explained, may be riskier than disregarding the warning.

I use this simple logic regarding religious claims. I see no reason at all to believe that I will be punished by a wrathful god for not buying what people claim he said. On the other hand, I know for a fact that believing religious claims can be very harmful. So the sensible course of action is to go with what I know to be true and disregard religious warnings.

If you don’t believe there will be any consequences of skepticism, then why did you ask the question?

Uh--I asked the question because I want to know how Christians can explain why unbelief is punished. I want them to think about what they believe.

You are obviously free to any opinion on morality you want to hold.

That's right! We all have opinions about morality. I'm glad to see you're seeing it my way.

You presented “morally wrong” as a personal opinion when that definition suits your argument, but changed “morally wrong” to a kind of objective morality when that definition suits you argument.

Sorry, but what you're saying here is simply false. I never consider morality to be objective. You appear to be reading into what I've said about morality assuming that I mean something is right or wrong in an objective sense when I don't mean it that way.

By the way, I see Christian apologists making this false assumption all the time. Every time an atheist says something is good or bad morally speaking, the apologist jumps on it claiming that the atheist is saying that something is objectively good or bad when the atheist said no such thing.

None of that changes the fact that you have committed the fallacy of equivocation when you talk about morality.

Correct. What changes the fact that I have allegedly committed the fallacy of equivocation when I discuss morality is that you have misrepresented what I said about morality reading into what I said what was never there.

So I never equivocated. You have set up a straw-man, and the fallacy is yours.

It just reveals fallacy behind your questions because you have applied your cultural norms or personal tastes to the concept of a God that is outside of all human cultures or tastes.

How is it a fallacy if I agree with my society concluding that the acts of the Bible god are barbaric and stupid? I just tell it like it is.

...what is your worldview?

My "worldview" is to try to see the world for what it is rather than what I wish it was.

Is it worthy of reward from an eternal reward from an unbiased Judge? Have you personally lived by it so well that you deserve that reward yourself?

I don't know. I suppose it depends on the judge. If the judge doles out rewards to people who respect the truth, then I'm in luck!

You “simple questions” about punishment do not accurately reflect the complexity of Christian belief or life in general.

I agree with you here to some extent. Christians contradict each other so much that it's often impossible to know ahead of time what they believe.

[Bust Nak]

So your theory is that the question “Why should unbelievers be punished for not believing what Christians claim?” does not include the assumption of people being punished for not believing?

It's a follow up to should they be punished, if your answer to the first question is they shouldn't, then the follow up doesn't apply.

There are settings when the question of should can be asked. The way it was done here is the fallacy of equivocation.

Equivocating what with what? Subjective morality with objective morality? If so then see the following questions.

The question may be posed to me, but it is about God.

So why can't you appeal to your cultural norms or personal tastes to a question about God? You have cultural norms or personal tastes.

Correct. So as long as no one is asking a question about a God who, at least in concept, is outside of time and culture then there would be no problem.

Same as above. Why would it be a problem in a question about a God who is outside of time and culture / why can't you rationally apply subjectivist ethics to the Christian concept of God?

[DavidLeon]

...
Well, the quote we were discussing has Jesus saying he didn't come to judge and Revelation later has him judging. Pretty simple and clear, don't you think?

I have understood people are basically already judged, but that what was judged, has not yet been delivered. In the end Jesus will deliver what everyone has gained.

In a way we judge ourselves. People who reject God and Jesus and the good news in a sense judge themselves, as do those who accept and live accordingly. I wouldn't use the term "gained" because there will be those who have done powerful works in Jesus' name who he will reject. Jesus' time here on earth as a man in the flesh, though, did not judge. He was here to minister to the chosen ones, the Jews, but they rejected him and so the invitation was extended to the gentiles.

[unknown soldier]

Yes, I don’t think your disbelief will be reason for the wrath. But, if you are unrighteous and evil, then there may be reason to fear wrath. Bible tells eternal life is for righteous and unrighteous don’t have that. So, in the Bible, the crucial thing is, is person righteous or not.

In that case the large majority of people who don't believe in Jesus or even know about him have no need for him. They can get by on their own righteousness. Most people--Christian or not--are good people. Christ, for them, is then irrelevant to their fate.

Why do you think it would be crazy?

Allowing myself to get beat up or giving away whatever I have to whoever asks--like Jesus commanded--would be foolish indeed.

Anyway, you've argued that there is no need for Jesus; we just need to be righteous. That's an interesting take on Christianity.

[otseng]

I would give them a link to Atheist Discussions. Dregs of society. Loathsome creatures.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make negative comments of other groups.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[DavidLeon]

Sorry, that is your opinion about your myth.
People like the Pope and many other people who preach obviously closer to God in time or education, disagree with you.
I can see no reason to take your word about the myth, over their word about the myth.

Really? Well, here's a free thought for such a remarkably astute critical thinker. Look it up. Do a little research for yourself. Start with, uh . . . Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom)

[DavidLeon]

Why would a godless heathen tell their children about a god concept that would offer them eternal bliss if they were to just dedicate their lives to this concept? Why would a godless heathen threaten a child with a 'hell' concept of sorts? Your explanation is lacking.

So hung up on religion! Just give it up. You keep digging at that wound like it was their fault you wasted your time with it. Let it go and allow yourself to heal. The old English word hell means to cover or conceal. It was a suitable translation of the Hebrew and Greek for the common grave. The idea of it being a place where the immortal soul is tormented forever by demons is pagan. The godless heathens came up with the idea and the apostate Christians adopted it later to draw in that crowd for more money and power. Influence.

Whether hell is the grave or suffering in an eternal lake of fire doesn't seem to change this scare tactic that I mention.

Death. We are talking about death. If a parent says to his spoiled idiot child that playing around the cliff edge will get him killed then the scare tactic should logically be employed. Why? Because it's true.

It would be refreshing if you stopped pretending that you were some authority on the matter though.

Nah. I think I'll continue pretending to be an authority on the subject until someone comes along and demonstrates I'm wrong. Maybe you can find some expert who can enlighten you and you can be the one to do that with the information you discover. Or . . . you can keep whining about how horrible religion is. Yes, religion is horrible but I have to assume that it draws to itself the people who are looking for something horrible or else they would walk away from it immediately like I did when it came knocking on my door. I've never been a part of any religion. Religion is what people make it.

What 'hell' is has not been established within Christian circles. We only have practicers pretending to know what this hell idea is. Again, the division is within the religion, not from outside.

It's a word. You don't have to be an over educated clone to know what it means.

This completely missed the mark about addressing religious scare tactics that are used and how an all powerful god would come up with a better method then what terrorists use. Far too many religious people scare their young into belief from my experience.

[sigh] An all powerful god didn't come up with hell. Terrorism is propaganda. Religious people get what they deserve. The scare tactics are either a device which awakens the poor children to the true nature of religion and when they grow up they leave it or they go on to perpetuate the myth. If the former then the illusion is better short lived and if the latter it shows that religion gets the people it deserves. Think about it. Is religion really such a horrible thing? No, it's just a word to describe a group of people. Are the people, then the real horror? Yes. They are. And their children.

I have used my brain and I have read the Bible. Also attended private school K-12, was a teen pastor, missionary and street evangelizing drunk in the holy ghost Christian.

That explains a lot. You haven't really changed much, have you? Once religious always religious. You've only switched denominations.

This god concept in fact did not give me what I needed, to know that he was real. Losing my beliefs was the hardest thing I had ever faced. I assure you, the tears and the crys to my god were real. I did not want to lose my beliefs, I tried to protect them for years by doing what you do now. Pretending to know things that I didn't that helped to justify the beliefs that were giving me pause.

The pretense was difficult to part with or the thought of having to revamp it was because from over here it looks like nothing's changed.

I want to know if there is one god concept that can be shown to be something other than the imaginations of humans.

No you don't.

This god already knows what it would take for me to know that it is real. What good would going to a complaint department do as it should already know that it failed to identify itself as a real god concept compared to all the false god concepts that are available.

Nice spin. Relieves hostility ironically?

Please stop asking me debate questions if you are unable to address them.

Please just answer the questions I ask and stop preaching to me. Try instead to actually think about the answer.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates.

Like I told you before, the debate is lost when the idiot drinks the Kool-Aid or Hemlock. Don't drink the Kool-Aid or Hemlock.