God seems to be harsh on unbelievers. Christ praises those who believe without any evidence for believing. Allah is horrendously brutal towards those who don't believe.
It's not as if a father can reprimand his son for not believing he exists. He can reprimand his son for misbehaving.
It seems that punishment for disbelief is a human artifice to get people to fall in line.
Is it just for God to reprimand disbelief?
Is it not perhaps humans who put words into God's mouth?
Why punish those who don't believe?
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #2There may be quibbles about what "justice" means when God dispenses it, for we cannot judge God. However, if we take the situation that we are told God punishes disbelief can we reasonably assume that God does not punish the innocent? We use our faculties to reach conclusions and these may be right or wrong.
Not everyone can sit down with Aquinas and after hours of thought conclude that God exists.
Not everyone can sit down with Aquinas and after hours of thought conclude that God exists.
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #3There can be many causes of unbelief. Seems unreasonable to equate skepticism with immorality, worthy of punishment.marco wrote: God seems to be harsh on unbelievers. Christ praises those who believe without any evidence for believing. Allah is horrendously brutal towards those who don't believe.
It's not as if a father can reprimand his son for not believing he exists. He can reprimand his son for misbehaving.
It seems that punishment for disbelief is a human artifice to get people to fall in line.
Is it just for God to reprimand disbelief?
Is it not perhaps humans who put words into God's mouth?
Unlike Christians and Muslims, Jews consider behavior more important than belief. So there can be "righteous Gentiles", Muslims, Christians and even in theory, atheists.
My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #4It is my view that Adonai is the creator of mankind. The idea of Adonai being the father of all mankind is a modern neoclassical principle. I do not see it in the Scriptures. Even if one does accept that philosophy, the child that rejects a parent naturally suffers as an orphan. The child that insists on being part of a family and yet dishonors it's parents, is disciplined or caste out of the family, for the sake of the stability of the family.marco wrote: It's not as if a father can reprimand his son for not believing he exists. He can reprimand his son for misbehaving.
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #5Your analogy doesn't really work, because in the analogy, the child accepts that the parent exists, he believes that the parent exists, he just doesn't like the parents for whatever reasons.bluethread wrote:It is my view that Adonai is the creator of mankind. The idea of Adonai being the father of all mankind is a modern neoclassical principle. I do not see it in the Scriptures. Even if one does accept that philosophy, the child that rejects a parent naturally suffers as an orphan. The child that insists on being part of a family and yet dishonors it's parents, is disciplined or caste out of the family, for the sake of the stability of the family.marco wrote: It's not as if a father can reprimand his son for not believing he exists. He can reprimand his son for misbehaving.
Not so with unbelievers to your god. Your god 'casts out' those who aren't convinced he even exists in the first place.
Imagine if you will you receive a letter tomorrow saying it's from your real father, and oh by the way, because you never believed this man to be your real father, he's now cutting you out of the will.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #6My analogy included them in the fact that the child that does not believe in parents orphans itself. If that one threatens the parents children in any way, the parent is justified in taking the actions necessary to preserve the family.rikuoamero wrote:
Your analogy doesn't really work, because in the analogy, the child accepts that the parent exists, he believes that the parent exists, he just doesn't like the parents for whatever reasons.
Not so with unbelievers to your god. Your god 'casts out' those who aren't convinced he even exists in the first place.
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #7I agree. If someone reaches a conclusion using the instruments he has, namely reason and logic, there can be no blame attached.Elijah John wrote:
It seems that punishment for disbelief is a human artifice to get people to fall in line.
I think the notion of punishment comes from those who want to keep a tight grip on the flock. Apostasy is sometimes punished with death.
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #8bluethread wrote:
Even if one does accept that philosophy, the child that rejects a parent naturally suffers as an orphan. The child that insists on being part of a family and yet dishonors its parents, is disciplined or caste out of the family, for the sake of the stability of the family.
Your analogy fails, bluethread. There is no question of rejection nor of knowledge of rejection. If we all had the same type of knowledge of our parent God as a human child has and then for some reason we abandoned him, there may be blame attached to this. Of course, in the human sphere, it might be perfectly wise to leave one's parents if they are monsters.
Returning to the situation regarding God, the person who uses reason to deduce there is no creator in the Abrahamic sense, crediting God's biographers with his invention, cannot be condemned for employing the tools that have allowed man to progress. Even if this reasoning is wrong, it is human to err, divine to forgive.
There is no case for condemnation.
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #9This would be unjust, of course. Sadly that letter never arrives. The child knows that somewhere on Earth there exists or existed his maker. There is no parallel with God; he is never seen and never heard and if he is indeed a father figure, he doesn't communicate. He has no right to complain or punish.rikuoamero wrote:
Imagine if you will you receive a letter tomorrow saying it's from your real father, and oh by the way, because you never believed this man to be your real father, he's now cutting you out of the will.
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: Why punish those who don't believe?
Post #10You are attaching blame. I did not say the child that does not recognize it's parents is to blame. However, it does suffer as an orphan none the less. It is not a matter of judgement, but natural consequence. Also, again, you are presuming the one who does not recognize the parent is indeed the parent's child. This is not necessarily the case.marco wrote:bluethread wrote:
Even if one does accept that philosophy, the child that rejects a parent naturally suffers as an orphan. The child that insists on being part of a family and yet dishonors its parents, is disciplined or caste out of the family, for the sake of the stability of the family.
Your analogy fails, bluethread. There is no question of rejection nor of knowledge of rejection. If we all had the same type of knowledge of our parent God as a human child has and then for some reason we abandoned him, there may be blame attached to this. Of course, in the human sphere, it might be perfectly wise to leave one's parents if they are monsters.
Returning to the situation regarding God, the person who uses reason to deduce there is no creator in the Abrahamic sense, crediting God's biographers with his invention, cannot be condemned for employing the tools that have allowed man to progress. Even if this reasoning is wrong, it is human to err, divine to forgive.
The idiom means that it is the nature of humanity to err and forgiving someone is a divine attribute. It does not mean that the divine are obligated to forgive. Neither you nor I have said anything about condemning the tools for man to progress. That is a red herring. However, let's examine that. Prior to the invention of those tools, was man being punished, or was he just suffering the natural effects of not having those tools?
There is when those tools threaten one's family. A child may enter a home and kill the family dog because it is hungry, but that does not mean that since it does not accept that there is a parent or recognize the rules of the house, it is granted the right to be a member of the household and avoid being expelled from the household. The child is not a member of the household until it is adopted as a member of the household and therefore has no rights.There is no case for condemnation.