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?

[1213]

...
Jesus spoke those words in a specific time in application to that time. He hadn't come to judge at that time, but later he would.

Maybe so, please show where do you get that idea?

[1213]

…Which Bible version are you quoting?

It is for example in World English, Young’s literal and King James Bible.

Then why believe?

Believe what? That it is good to love others? That God exists? That Jesus is real and told the truth?

I believe God exists, because of this world and the Bible. I believe Jesus is true, because of what he says in the Bible and that I see it being true. And I also understand his teachings are good and I want to follow him because of that.

[DavidLeon]

...
Jesus spoke those words in a specific time in application to that time. He hadn't come to judge at that time, but later he would.

Maybe so, please show where do you get that idea?

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?

[Clownboat]

This one worked well on many children!
If I'm wrong, then you will lose out on nothing come death, but if I'm right, you will go to hell if you do not heed my words, I mean the words of a god that I'm claiming to use.

Except for that hell is the grave so it really isn't much different than anything a godless heathen would tell their children.

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.

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

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

Exactly. But y'all ruffled up ain't ya?!

I am not, so I must assume you are projecting. Either way, not something worth debate.

Terrorists! Hmph. That's old school government mass media propaganda bogeyman. There's nothing scary about death. Children learn about it pretty early on and all of our adorable attempts to protect them from reality are as futile as they look. If you want to stop messing up your kids stop telling them about Santa and the Easter Bunny. Christmas and Easter.

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.

The God I'm talking about, the one that isn't connected to any nonsensical religious doctrines of omniscience or omnipotence etc. does know what it would take for you to know that he is real and he also knows what it would take for you to pretend you don't. He's given you everything you need. The two b's. A brain and a Bible. Hallelujah!! Can I get an amen, brother Clown boat!

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.
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.

Well, what is it you want to know, buddy? Hmmm? You just tell me and I can point you in the right direction. Unless ... Unless you don't really want to know. Unless he's just a convenient scapegoat. Clownboat's Scapegoat?

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

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.

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

[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?

There are several significant problems with this line of reasoning.

I didn't post a line of reasoning. I asked two very simple questions. I would appreciate two honest, sensible answers to those questions.

...if a warning is given and ignored then there are natural negative consequences.

If the warning is heeded, and it turns out that the warning is bogus, then there can be very negative consequences too. Any sensible person understands this principle. That's why it's wise, for example, to get vaccinated against diseases when crackpots "warn" you not to.

The skeptic may feel that he has valid reasoning for ignoring a warning. If the warning proves true and he ignores it, no matter the reason, then he will suffer the consequences of whatever the warning was about.

It's very possible that an apparently empty warning may turn out to be valid. However, it's wise to use one's head to decide what warnings need to be heeded. That way a person will probably not suffer adverse consequences. None of us can foresee perfectly the consequences of what we do or don't do, though, but that's just life. We must make decisions hoping we do the right thing.

...being skeptical about a storm warning (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable the skepticism) will not prevent a person from getting rained on.

Would you seriously believe anybody who tells you there's a storm coming and run off with him believing he can save you from that storm? What if he's lying and plans to rob or murder you after he gets you to leave the safety of your home? The sensible course of action is to check to see if there really is a storm coming and if he can really save you from it.

In the context of Christianity, I think it's very foolish to believe Christians when they warn me about the supposed consequences of my skepticism. I have no reason to believe that there are such consequences, but I know from experience that I can get hurt believing them. So Christian evangelists are like some criminal banging on my door shouting that he can save me from a storm that is in all probability not coming. If I believe that criminal trusting him to save me, then he will probably victimize me.

Asking if something “should” happen, or if something is “morally wrong,” is built on the idea of objective morality.

No it isn't! If I ask somebody what is or is not morally wrong, then I want their opinion. Hence, morality is subjective. Everybody has their own ideas of right and wrong. Your morality is no more objective than anybody else's morality.

A theist can point to God as the source of objective morality and say that there is something morally right or morally wrong; that things should be a certain way.

What if theists disagree on a moral issue, and they often do disagree. They can all point to different gods who presumably said different things about morality. Who's right?

And how is any god a source of objective morality? What gods have pronounced often seems very wicked to me. The Christian god is a mass-murderer, for example. If that's objective morality, then I'm glad I don't have objective morality!

Non-theism in its various forms has, as of yet, always relied on subjective morality. A non-theist can ask if some action is against his cultural norms or if it is something that he would personally dislike.

That's what I do, and it works well for me. Besides, theists do basically the same thing because "cultural norms" are often based in religious beliefs.

However asking if something is morally right or wrong, beyond personal opinion, demands belief in a God of some kind.

In that case Abraham was justified in agreeing to butcher his own son. God told him to do it, and what God says goes, does it not?

We must ask if this skeptic’s own worldview, and how well he has abides by it, is worthy of reward.

Speaking for myself, my worldview helps me to stay out of trouble. My reward is knowing that I'm a good person who does no needless harm to others.

[unknown soldier]

…Which Bible version are you quoting?

It is for example in World English, Young’s literal and King James Bible.

The King James Bible does translate the Greek φυλάξῃ in John 12:47 as "believe," but most other translations translate the word as "keep." The root word φυλάσσω (singular-first-indicative) might mean watch, guard, protect, or defend. I don't see that it can truly mean "believe," so the KJV is a poor translation. John 12:47 is really not saying that unbelief will not be "judged."

Believe what? That it is good to love others? That God exists? That Jesus is real and told the truth?

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.

I believe God exists, because of this world and the Bible. I believe Jesus is true, because of what he says in the Bible and that I see it being true. And I also understand his teachings are good and I want to follow him because of that.

Really? If a huge man attacked you striking you on the cheek, would you offer him the other cheek to strike? Do you drink poison and handle poisonous snakes? Do you give to anybody who asks including giving all you have to the poor? If not, then you do not follow Jesus.

It's OK, though. You are as sensible as I am. We both know better than to do such crazy things.

[unknown soldier]

No one should be punished for not being a believer. The Bible is a less than credible collection of documents, which seem to be very human creations with no input from any external entity.

In almost any situation, failing to believe what somebody says is not considered to be morally wrong. In fact, we know that doubt can be very wise especially if belief might pose some kind of danger to us or others. Christianity encourages us to forego doubt exposing us to risk. The history of Christianity is filled with tragic stories of those who died for no good reason believing the claims of the church.

[bjs1]

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

There are several significant problems with this line of reasoning.

I didn't post a line of reasoning. I asked two very simple questions. I would appreciate two honest, sensible answers to those questions.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_q ... 20involved.

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 a warning is given and ignored then there are natural negative consequences.

If the warning is heeded, and it turns out that the warning is bogus, then there can be very negative consequences too. Any sensible person understands this principle. That's why it's wise, for example, to get vaccinated against diseases when crackpots "warn" you not to.

That’s true. But you asked a Loaded Question about being “punished” for not believing. 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.

...being skeptical about a storm warning (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable the skepticism) will not prevent a person from getting rained on.

Would you seriously believe anybody who tells you there's a storm coming and run off with him believing he can save you from that storm? What if he's lying and plans to rob or murder you after he gets you to leave the safety of your home? The sensible course of action is to check to see if there really is a storm coming and if he can really save you from it.

In the context of Christianity, I think it's very foolish to believe Christians when they warn me about the supposed consequences of my skepticism.

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

Asking if something “should” happen, or if something is “morally wrong,” is built on the idea of objective morality.

No it isn't! If I ask somebody what is or is not morally wrong, then I want their opinion. Hence, morality is subjective. Everybody has their own ideas of right and wrong. Your morality is no more objective than anybody else's morality.

You are obviously free to any opinion on morality you want to hold. However, if you apply what you have called an opinion to the Christian concept of God, then you have committed the fallacy of equivocation.

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.


https://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/reso ... ation.html

A theist can point to God as the source of objective morality and say that there is something morally right or morally wrong; that things should be a certain way.

What if theists disagree on a moral issue, and they often do disagree. They can all point to different gods who presumably said different things about morality. Who's right?

And how is any god a source of objective morality? What gods have pronounced often seems very wicked to me. The Christian god is a mass-murderer, for example. If that's objective morality, then I'm glad I don't have objective morality!

Theists can disagree on moral issues. You can dislike the Christian view of God. None of that changes the fact that you have committed the fallacy of equivocation when you talk about morality.

Non-theism in its various forms has, as of yet, always relied on subjective morality. A non-theist can ask if some action is against his cultural norms or if it is something that he would personally dislike.

That's what I do, and it works well for me.

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.

We must ask if this skeptic’s own worldview, and how well he has abides by it, is worthy of reward.

Speaking for myself, my worldview helps me to stay out of trouble. My reward is knowing that I'm a good person who does no needless harm to others.

Okay, but what is your worldview? 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?

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

[Willum]

Personally, I would rather burn in Hell with Gandhi, then enjoy a Heaven with a redeemed Hitler.

Well, unfortunately for you I guess, neither option is available so Gandhi isn't in hell and Hitler isn't in Heaven because hell is a pagan myth from the Biblical common grave and heaven wasn't made for humans.

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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

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.

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.

Where do you think this change to objective morality has happened?

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.

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.

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.