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?

[JehovahsWitness]

Fortunately, it is highly unlikely that unbelievers will be punished. From all appearances we live our lives and then die never to live again.

Biblically speaking permanent death is in fact the ultimate punishment for the wicked.

EZELIEL 18:4 - NWT

The soul who sins is the one who will die

JW


RELATED POSTS

What does the bible say is the punishment for the incorrigibly wicked? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1018942#p1018942

Lazarus' Story: What's it like being dead?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p918712

Why is death likened to "sleep"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p832213

[unknown soldier]

Jesus said:

If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. ..
John 12:47

Which Bible version are you quoting? The ESV says:

If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him...

In this version belief is not mentioned.

So, I don’t think there is really any judgment because of disbelief.

Then why believe?

According to the Bible, judgment goes like this:

This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his works may be revealed, that they have been done in God."
John 3:19-21

There's another reason people may not "come to the light." They know it's a lot of nonsense.

Jesus, evidently, never thought of that or at least he never admitted it.

[unknown soldier]

Fortunately, it is highly unlikely that unbelievers will be punished. From all appearances we live our lives and then die never to live again. There no reason to be upset by this, it's just the natural order. Life follows death, permanent death. This is apparently true for believers and unbelievers alike.

If the Christian god exists, he evidently doesn't bother to make his eternal salvation evident, at least not to the living. Like you say the "saved" go the same way as the unsaved. I understand that Jesus makes a person's eternal fate very obvious post-death when it's too late to choose. You would think that our choice to follow him would come after we know his doctrines are true rather than before we know.

Many humans find this idea distasteful and have thus developed myriad ideas to ignore it's likelihood. Absent this distaste for death one wonders if religion would have ever gotten off the ground.

As far as I know all religions offer rewards in exchange for belief--rewards that are very often promised to be granted after death. Personally, I'd like the reward right away while I'm living. That way I don't need to die; dying is rough no matter what the reward may be.

[unknown soldier]

Biblically speaking permanent death is in fact the ultimate punishment for the wicked.

EZELIEL 18:4 - NWT

The soul who sins is the one who will die

In that case it makes no difference to me because I know my death will be permanent. I wonder why Jesus died on the cross if the punishment for "the wicked" is, as far as I can tell, no different from the fate of Christians. What did he "save" us from considering that we all die and stay dead?

And I also understand that all those Bible passages about everlasting torment in flames, at least to some Christians, are merely metaphors for eternal death. That death would be symbolized by conscious torment in fire is quite a stretch considering that death is rarely if ever attended by flames, and the dead have "no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom." So fire or no fire, the dead cannot be tormented.

[unknown soldier]

Clergy work is consistently ranked among the lowest paying jobs requiring the most work and the highest level of education. If money was a primary motivator then there is little doubt clergy workers would find employment elsewhere.

Then the clergy should pray for less work and more money rather than beg for that money. After all, they tell us to pray for what we need. I wonder why they don't take their own advice.

[DavidLeon]

Biblically speaking permanent death is in fact the ultimate punishment for the wicked.

EZELIEL 18:4 - NWT

The soul who sins is the one who will die

In that case it makes no difference to me because I know my death will be permanent. I wonder why Jesus died on the cross if the punishment for "the wicked" is, as far as I can tell, no different from the fate of Christians. What did he "save" us from considering that we all die and stay dead?

And I also understand that all those Bible passages about everlasting torment in flames, at least to some Christians, are merely metaphors for eternal death. That death would be symbolized by conscious torment in fire is quite a stretch considering that death is rarely if ever attended by flames, and the dead have "no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom." So fire or no fire, the dead cannot be tormented.

Right. Romans 6:7: For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin. There's no more punishment after death. The difference between the wicked and the righteous is resurrection into everlasting life. The meek inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

[bjs1]

Clergy work is consistently ranked among the lowest paying jobs requiring the most work and the highest level of education. If money was a primary motivator then there is little doubt clergy workers would find employment elsewhere.

Then the clergy should pray for less work and more money rather than beg for that money. After all, they tell us to pray for what we need. I wonder why they don't take their own advice.

Why would they do that? The idea that their primary motivation is money (and hence they should pray for more money) is entirely your projection and contradicted by the available evidence.

[unknown soldier]

Right. Romans 6:7: For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin. There's no more punishment after death. The difference between the wicked and the righteous is resurrection into everlasting life. The meek inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

You didn't explain how fire and torment can be metaphors for death. I don't think they are metaphors for death but are meant to be taken literally. Jesus was evidently obsessed with the idea or burning his enemies tormenting them eternally.

If he existed and said what he is quoted as saying, then he was a very sick man.

[DavidLeon]

Right. Romans 6:7: For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin. There's no more punishment after death. The difference between the wicked and the righteous is resurrection into everlasting life. The meek inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

You didn't explain how fire and torment can be metaphors for death. I don't think they are metaphors for death but are meant to be taken literally. Jesus was evidently obsessed with the idea or burning his enemies tormenting them eternally.

If he existed and said what he is quoted as saying, then he was a very sick man.

Fire isn't a metaphor for death as such, it's symbolic for everlasting destruction. The wicked suffer everlasting destruction meaning not just death, but death without resurrection. Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, aren't literally still burning but serve as a symbol of everlasting destruction. Jude 1:7

[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.

First, as DavidLeon points out in post 3, if a warning is given and ignored then there are natural negative consequences. 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. To borrow DavidLeon’s analogy, being skeptical about a storm warning (no matter how reasonable or unreasonable the skepticism) will not prevent a person from getting rained on.

If we completely ignore this first problem, then there is a second problem.

Asking if something “should” happen, or if something is “morally wrong,” is built on the idea of objective 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. 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. However asking if something is morally right or wrong, beyond personal opinion, demands belief in a God of some kind.

If we completely ignore both of these problems, then there is still a third problem.

Skepticism is not itself a position to hold, but a response to someone else’s position. A person might be skeptical of the claims about Christ, but that does not make him a blank sheet with no worldview of his own. He still has his own worldview or philosophy of life. Viewed in this broader sense, it is not sufficient to ask if skepticism of another’s claims deserves to be punished. We must ask if this skeptic’s own worldview, and how well he has abides by it, is worthy of reward.