Theists: Why does god punish people after death?

[JMP300z]

Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?

I can understand the reward/heaven part kinda, but the punishment/hell part seems crazy.

Why would he go through the trouble? Why would he be so cruel? Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??

-JP

[Darryl_P]

IMO it's not for eternity. You most likely reincarnate into a lesser creature and get another chance to rethink what you did wrong in your life as a human, having to suffer with lesser capabilities all the while.

Alternatively, God may come up with something more ingenious to get you to believe in Him. In any case, God always gets it right, even if I don't know what He will do.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?

I can understand the reward/heaven part kinda, but the punishment/hell part seems crazy.

Why would he go through the trouble? Why would he be so cruel? Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

Carrot, stick.

[Peter666]

"Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enought??"

Yes, it would. And when one separates themselves from all goodness, all beauty, all happiness etc, what are they left with? The opposite.

The fires of a physical Hell would actually be a distraction from the more painful intellectual loss of everything you ever wanted.

[SNOWBALL]

Once you wade past the shallow end of the New Testament into the back half of the Old Testament, get ready: it turns out God's a [censored] lunatic, and He loves the taste of your blood. Old Testament God ain't letting Himself get nailed to any crosses like some pussy; OT God wouldn't spit on your balls if they were on fire. If He covers your eyes with boils to win a bet with Satan, consider yourself lucky He didn't turn your city into a mushroom cloud for not praying to Him enough. Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament leaves only one conclusion: God is a total hardass, and if you step out of line He will most likely drop you in the time it takes most people to open a door. (http://www.jaypinkerton.com/backofthebible.html)

[pilliwinks]

Love the link, Snowball. Jay has a way with words (and pictures).

He's great at pointing out all the drastic things God did, but no so good at explaining why he did them. Since we are lucky enough to have been told the 'big picture' it seems a shame to ignore it.

[hmkpoker]

Because God is a prick.

Simple.

[Dane S]

Because God is the fully realized self and hell represents the inevitable and endless self-torture of the egocentric and isolated individual.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO it's not for eternity. You most likely reincarnate into a lesser creature and get another chance to rethink what you did wrong in your life as a human, having to suffer with lesser capabilities all the while.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are those who have been re-incarnated going round screaming, repent now you [censored]!

[godBoy]

Hell isn't where the devil will prod at you with his firy poker..

Hell is simply what is the absence of God. It wasn't designed for torture, it's that way beacuse on earth we can experience both the hellish and the comforts and pleasures that come with God.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't those who have been re-incarnated going round screaming, repent now you [censored]!

[/ QUOTE ]

[surftheiop]

Didnt read any other responses,

"Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??"

You just defined hell, and said wouldnt that be enough but earlier in the same post you were saying this was unreasonable???

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??


[/ QUOTE ]

Being so for an infinity is an infinite punishment and just as cruel and sadistic imo. It is again an instance of trying to rationalise the unreasonable: a concept of god as evil.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??


[/ QUOTE ]

Being so for an infinity is an infinite punishment and just as cruel and sadistic imo. It is again an instance of trying to rationalise the unreasonable: a concept of god as evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

But in the afterlife we are dealing with an absence of time, not a superabundance of it. One's free will is perfectly acted out. Those who are in Hell will to be there.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But in the afterlife we are dealing with an absence of time, not a superabundance of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the word of god too, peter? It seems many people are putting words in his mouth which never appeared in the bible! All in the defense of justification, no doubts... LOL

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in the afterlife we are dealing with an absence of time, not a superabundance of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the word of god too, peter? It seems many people are putting words in his mouth which never appeared in the bible! All in the defense of justification, no doubts... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just philosophical fact. Don't believe everything you hear from people who claim the Bible to be sole authority. It cannot be.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
That's just philosophical fact

[/ QUOTE ]

Say no more. Laughing is getting painful here. Too much of it.

[Peter666]

Enjoy it as long as you can. Eternity has always been philosophically defined as the absence of time.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Eternity has always been philosophically defined as the absence of time

[/ QUOTE ]

You are loosing all cerdibility, but interestingly you are putting philosophy ahead of religious canon. I guess it is necessary to do so when confronted with the contradictions inherent in the canon. The only other alternative is to invoke another mystery. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Peter666]

You will have to explain it to St. Thomas Aquinas who taught that Philosophy is the handmaiden and foundation of all Theology.

[MidGe]

Where does Aquinas say "Eternity has always been philosophically defined as the absence of time" or aything remotely like it. Resorting to strawman arguments, now, Peter?

[Peter666]

No, my arguments are factual. Look it up yourself. I can't bottle feed you all the time. What Aquinas have your read by the way?

[MidGe]

Can't find any reference. I have no access to your imagination.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell isn't where the devil will prod at you with his firy poker..

Hell is simply what is the absence of God. It wasn't designed for torture, it's that way beacuse on earth we can experience both the hellish and the comforts and pleasures that come with God.

[/ QUOTE ]
So heaven is like earth without the mindless, morality imposing, ideology ridden zeolets.

It does sound good.

chez

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??


[/ QUOTE ]

Being so for an infinity is an infinite punishment and just as cruel and sadistic imo. It is again an instance of trying to rationalise the unreasonable: a concept of god as evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why it unreasonable to have a concept of god as an evil being? Or maybe I read you wrong.

Joseph

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??


[/ QUOTE ]

Being so for an infinity is an infinite punishment and just as cruel and sadistic imo. It is again an instance of trying to rationalise the unreasonable: a concept of god as evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why it unreasonable to have a concept of god as an evil being? Or maybe I read you wrong.

Joseph

[/ QUOTE ]there's nothing unreasonable about the concept of an evil god. Its just unreasonable or dishonest to claim such a god is good.

Trouble is most humans have a strong sense of good/bad. It seems that most humans are actually quite decent people (though they aren't as noisy on average as the nasty ones). the problem for religon is how to reconcile the fundamental decency of most people with a deeply unpleasant conception of god.

chez

[Schmitty 87]

fwiw, I think (in theology) that there's definitely a difference between "eternity" and "endless time". Tillich talks about it, but I can't remember in what.

[KeysrSoze]

As long as everyone (well some) is throwing out philosophical theology, I think I'll throw in my oddball theories. So lets say eternity is the absence of time. God was around before he created time, so therefore God was left alone with no sensation and no frame of reference with nothing but his own thoughts for unimaginable eternity. I reckon this is why God is so completely, utterly insane. What else could drive a perfect being to create an imperfect universe but the need to escape that unbearable infinite sensory deprivation chamber that was pre-existence? Why else would an omniscient omnipotent being create creatures that would be like ants to him and demand their unfailing worship and obedience, but for the hell he experienced that made him grasping, needy, starved for attention and unable to bear being alone. Hence his spiteful "well lets see how you like it" shtick after you die when you don't kiss his ass. Thats my 2 cents, I don't have any references real or imaginary on my part, though its as reasonable as any explanation from the <strike>philosophers</strike> [censored] artists.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this "god" (as described by xtians) is hideously evil almost beyond comprehension.

What's more interesting is how belief in this evil being so easily leads believers to adopt an evil ethical code. For example, for hundreds of years Catholic theologians (along with, presumably, most of their followers) advocated murdering innocent people for the crime of "heresy."

A person can be good only in so far as he or she rejects faith-based ethical doctrines, including the Christian version. In fact, I claim the fundamental "cause" of evil in men is epistemological: namely, the abandonment of reason for faith. This thread is a good illustration; notice how some Christians, through tortuous "reasoning," actually attempt to justify the eternal torture of innocent people.

Once rationality is rejected, then ethically, anything goes. It clears the path, so to speak, for evil ideas.

[MidGe]

I agree with you bluesbassman.

It goes further. When theism is combined with the notion that god is good against all manifestations, it desensitize people to suffering (and the human condition) and hence you get comments like "it's not eternal punishment it is eternal lack of reward" without blinking an eye at the grossness of this conception. I have said before, this type of theism is only a very small step away from the notion of suicide bombers as martyrs, and is a very dangerous notion to the whole of humanity, as has been demostrated numetrous times in history.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you bluesbassman.

It goes further. When theism is combined with the notion that god is good against all manifestations, it desensitize people to suffering (and the human condition) and hence you get comments like "it's not eternal punishment it is eternal lack of reward" without blinking an eye at the grossness of this conception. I have said before, this type of theism is only a very small step away from the notion of suicide bombers as martyrs, and is a very dangerous notion to the whole of humanity, as has been demostrated numetrous times in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I dont follow this - could you expand? It seems to pertain to my point of view, yet I dont feel insensitive to suffering, nor the human condition.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this "god" (as described by xtians) is hideously evil almost beyond comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or this "god" is being hideously misdescribed.

[ QUOTE ]
What's more interesting is how belief in this evil being so easily leads believers to adopt an evil ethical code. For example, for hundreds of years Catholic theologians (along with, presumably, most of their followers) advocated murdering innocent people for the crime of "heresy."

A person can be good only in so far as he or she rejects faith-based ethical doctrines, including the Christian version. In fact, I claim the fundamental "cause" of evil in men is epistemological: namely, the abandonment of reason for faith. This thread is a good illustration; notice how some Christians, through tortuous "reasoning," actually attempt to justify the eternal torture of innocent people.

Once rationality is rejected, then ethically, anything goes. It clears the path, so to speak, for evil ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think punishing heretics was an example of ethical behaviour, I think it was the result of the church being a body interested in promoting its own power and influence. I think there are many examples of churches adopting positions which are not "good" - to me this isnt damning of theism, it is damning of those religions - or at least evidence that they are not concerned solely with promoting what is right.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this "god" (as described by xtians) is hideously evil almost beyond comprehension.

What's more interesting is how belief in this evil being so easily leads believers to adopt an evil ethical code. For example, for hundreds of years Catholic theologians (along with, presumably, most of their followers) advocated murdering innocent people for the crime of "heresy."

A person can be good only in so far as he or she rejects faith-based ethical doctrines, including the Christian version. In fact, I claim the fundamental "cause" of evil in men is epistemological: namely, the abandonment of reason for faith. This thread is a good illustration; notice how some Christians, through tortuous "reasoning," actually attempt to justify the eternal torture of innocent people.

Once rationality is rejected, then ethically, anything goes. It clears the path, so to speak, for evil ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that your own personal religion is do whatever the hell I think is right because I am my own god and cannot be wrong, then you are correct.

However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[MidGe]

Heya bunny,

First of all I like you and I'd forgotten who made the statement in question. It is only one of many such statements. Another that are similar is, a bit of suffering in this life is justified by the immensity of rewards in the next. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Having said that, I am certain your are a sensitive person and even more certain you think of yourself as such with good cause. In this instance, I think, that your very lack of recognition of the abhorence of the statement, tyranical and prfoudly evil, imo, examplifies the desentisation I am talking about. Of course, you don't see the problem with such a statement, that is the symptom of desensitivity. My suggestion is that you stay with the statement, examine it at length, and see if the horror of it does not dawn on you.

Alternatively I am over sensitive, not macho enough maybe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I hope you see that I mean you no offense, but am solely describing something out of my subjective experience.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it really take divine revelation to figure out "don't hurt other people"?

[Schmitty 87]

I really need to read Fear and Trembling again.

Isn't it interesting though that some of the basest evil in the world is carried out in the name of God?

Are we all to be equally judged on this "objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation"?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it really take divine revelation to figure out "don't hurt other people"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but sometimes it is necessary to hurt people unless you claim that pacifism is the final answer to everything and the true religion.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
Does it really take divine revelation to figure out "don't hurt other people"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's what the universal ethics covers. But what about the Abraham and Isaac situation?

I'm not saying this to try to sound intellectual or anything, but read Fear and Trembling. It covers this exact issue, and I'm not going to hopelessly try to replicate it because I myself don't entirely understand it.

[Schmitty 87]

[ QUOTE ]
No, but sometimes it is necessary to hurt people unless you claim that pacifism is the final answer to everything and the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

This makes little sense. Please explain further.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
I really need to read Fear and Trembling again.

Isn't it interesting though that some of the basest evil in the world is carried out in the name of God?

Are we all to be equally judged on this "objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The people who claim to be acting for God when knowingly conducting evil are always acting for their own selfish motives and just use "God" as a scapegoat.

If it is true, than we certainly will be judged in light of universally held ethics after death. We do it to each other in the natural life all the time. That's politics.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Why aren't those who have been re-incarnated going round screaming, repent now you [censored]!


[/ QUOTE ]

It could be because the info. about their reincarnation is just vague enough in their subconscious to give them a nagging feeling they're supposed to act according to God's will, but not vivid enough to articulate why.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, but sometimes it is necessary to hurt people unless you claim that pacifism is the final answer to everything and the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

This makes little sense. Please explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, but sometimes it is necessary to hurt people unless you claim that pacifism is the final answer to everything and the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

This makes little sense. Please explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[/ QUOTE ]
If all were as honest as you and dropped the facade of benevolence them we wont have to keep pointing out the unpleasantness of the god you believe in.

Suppose there is a god and he is good. What will he think of all you lot who have it is so wrong?

Suppose there is a a god and you are correct about his unpleasantness. What makes you think he will reward you for obedience?

chez

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it really take divine revelation to figure out "don't hurt other people"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but sometimes it is necessary to hurt people unless you claim that pacifism is the final answer to everything and the true religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple non-violence principle seems pretty sufficient for a universal standard of morality. As long as people aren't hurting each other (except in self-defense), what do we need this big elaborate divinely revealed moral conduct thing for?

[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, it doesn't take a psychologist to know that a little selflessness and altruism is conducive to personal well-being, it's common sense.

I know it's satisfying in a primitive sort of way to beat people in competition and debate (and to rub it in), but it's not nearly as satisfying or lasting as a bit of selflessness. (It's a shame violence, both physical and verbal, is so addicting, I'd really like to stop mine on 2+2 /images/graemlins/frown.gif )

[ QUOTE ]
What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[/ QUOTE ]

None, according to your belief structure. If I believed that there was a big magical place up in the sky where I'd be happy forever and ever that was infinitely better than here, I don't think I'd care about anything except dying and going there.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
If all were as honest as you and dropped the facade of benevolence them we wont have to keep pointing out the unpleasantness of the god you believe in.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is putting the blame in the wrong place. If people behave in an unpleasant way, then why not just blame the people rather than assume their worshipped being has unpleasant properties??

The psychology of religious fanaticism is very much like that of sports fanaticism IMO. A typical sports fanatic is crappy at sports, so he identifies himself with a strong team to make himself feel stronger and more valuable. He still says all sorts of irrational and nutty things about the team, other teams, other fans, and sports in general, but that doesn't mean his team is any worse.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
This is putting the blame in the wrong place. If people behave in an unpleasant way, then why not just blame the people rather than assume their worshipped being has unpleasant properties??

[/ QUOTE ]

We DO blame them. We don't believe their worshipped being even exists! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The psychology of religious fanaticism is very much like that of sports fanaticism IMO. A typical sports fanatic is crappy at sports, so he identifies himself with a strong team to make himself feel stronger and more valuable. He still says all sorts of irrational and nutty things about the team, other teams, other fans, and sports in general, but that doesn't mean his team is any worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, religious fanaticism aside, God says and does some pretty cruel, vindictive things throughout the old testament /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Heya bunny,

First of all I like you and I'd forgotten who made the statement in question. It is only one of many such statements. Another that are similar is, a bit of suffering in this life is justified by the immensity of rewards in the next. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I dont agree with this second statement, it doesnt make sense to me that a benevolent god would make a world with suffering if he could do otherwise (no matter how good the afterlife is - why not just skip the horrible part?). The statement I thought you were condemning was the claim that perhaps the only distinguishing thing between heaven and hell is being in god's presence or not. I dont see this as gross or evil.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, I am certain your are a sensitive person and even more certain you think of yourself as such with good cause. In this instance, I think, that your very lack of recognition of the abhorence of the statement, tyranical and prfoudly evil, imo, examplifies the desentisation I am talking about. Of course, you don't see the problem with such a statement, that is the symptom of desensitivity. My suggestion is that you stay with the statement, examine it at length, and see if the horror of it does not dawn on you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand you here, I think, and it's why I asked - I appreciate people criticising my position.

[ QUOTE ]
Alternatively I am over sensitive, not macho enough maybe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Well given what we see glorified in australian culture, we probably share a distaste of the macho, so I doubt this is a problem in understanding each other. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you see that I mean you no offense, but am solely describing something out of my subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course - it is very hard to offend me so dont hold back if you see me say something you think is dumb. I appreciate your thoughts.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If all were as honest as you and dropped the facade of benevolence them we wont have to keep pointing out the unpleasantness of the god you believe in.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is putting the blame in the wrong place. If people behave in an unpleasant way, then why not just blame the people rather than assume their worshipped being has unpleasant properties??


[/ QUOTE ]
As hmrpoker says, that's exactly right, but should we allow unpleasant behavior/beliefs to be justified in the name of a good god or should we expose the lie for the lie it is.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, religious fanaticism aside, God says and does some pretty cruel, vindictive things throughout the old testament

[/ QUOTE ]

My answer to that is that the vindictive/nasty things should not be taken so literally. Rather, I'd consider it the special F/X of the time to get people's attention and get them to focus on the underlying message.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
As hmrpoker says, that's exactly right, but should we allow unpleasant behavior/beliefs to be justified in the name of a good god or should we expose the lie for the lie it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what you consider the lie to be and whether or not it really is a lie.

If it's that unpleasant behavior is really not unpleasant behavior, then I agree with you. If it's that God is really not the ultimate source of righteousness, then I don't.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, perhaps I misunderstood. I dont agree with this second statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. Lack of reward, I equate with punishment (ie the child that is denied his/her ice-cream whilst the siblings are not). It is the notion of punishment, in this instance by way of inequity, that I find untenable. Bear in mind that the god/believer relationship is different from the parent/child in as much as sometimes a parent has to inflict suffering (ie needle for vaccination) for the well being of the child. The parent is not omnipotent unlike the notional god. Now, if god is not capable of creating well-being without suffering, then he is not omnipotent and becomes a very different notion from the abrahamaic god. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As hmrpoker says, that's exactly right, but should we allow unpleasant behavior/beliefs to be justified in the name of a good god or should we expose the lie for the lie it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what you consider the lie to be and whether or not it really is a lie.

If it's that unpleasant behavior is really not unpleasant behavior, then I agree with you. If it's that God is really not the ultimate source of righteousness, then I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its neither of those. Its that the unpleasant beliefs/behavior are the bidding of a good god. Either the god being invoked isn't good or the behavior/beliefs are not to do with god at all.

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to know what we define as nice and compassionate before answering that. The problem is that people are just making assumptions about what these things are and not showing specifically how the teachings of Christ are contradicted.

You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Its neither of those. Its that the unpleasant beliefs/behavior are the bidding of a good god. Either the god being invoked isn't good or the behavior/beliefs are not to do with god at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I vote for the latter. Do you have a lean as to which it is or are you about 50-50 on it?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this "god" (as described by xtians) is hideously evil almost beyond comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or this "god" is being hideously misdescribed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am describing the version of "god" which condemns people to "hell." That's evil no matter how you slice it. I realize not all self-described Christians believe in a literally hell. (Though I may consider their god evil in other ways.)

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think punishing heretics was an example of ethical behaviour, I think it was the result of the church being a body interested in promoting its own power and influence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. But this doctrine cannot be so blithely dismissed. It was justified theologically (i.e. by Aquinas), and remained part of the Catholic ethical code for hundreds of years. It also continued in a "watered-down" version for a long time after that, such as exemplified the well known imprisonment of Galileo. Even Newton, years later, almost got into legal trouble for his "heretical" physics.

The point is, one can justify these actions only by accepting a certain theological interpretation on faith.

[ QUOTE ]

I think there are many examples of churches adopting positions which are not "good" - to me this isnt damning of theism, it is damning of those religions - or at least evidence that they are not concerned solely with promoting what is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how would you reject the official Church doctrine of death for heresy as not being "right," if not by reason?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its neither of those. Its that the unpleasant beliefs/behavior are the bidding of a good god. Either the god being invoked isn't good or the behavior/beliefs are not to do with god at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I vote for the latter. Do you have a lean as to which it is or are you about 50-50 on it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally I don't believe in god and believe that all the good and bad in religon is a projection of the good and bad in man.

As for others, it makes no sense at all to worship a bad god so I suspect those that seem to don't believe in god at all.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to know what we define as nice and compassionate before answering that. The problem is that people are just making assumptions about what these things are and not showing specifically how the teachings of Christ are contradicted.

You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few posts ago you said this: [ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that sentiment your idea of conducting yourself according to the teachings of christ?

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming that your own personal religion is do whatever the hell I think is right because I am my own god and cannot be wrong, then you are correct.

However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of logical fallacies here.

A rational ethical code is not subjective, nor does it require or assume man's omniscience. The laws of physics, for example, aren't "whatever I think is right." And I can comprehend them even though I know I am capable of error, and that I can be wrong.

We don't know everything, but we know some things. I design guidance & control systems for spacecraft for a living. I know that, to first order approximation, the motion of spacecraft follow Newton's laws. (And for certain long range sensors, I must take relativistic effects into account to accurately process measurements.) I must rigorously and objectively apply this knowledge to enable spacecraft to work.

In the same way, I also know that to murder and to steal is wrong. And I must apply this knowledge of objective ethical truths if I want to live, in the words of Aristotle, the "good life."

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming that your own personal religion is do whatever the hell I think is right because I am my own god and cannot be wrong, then you are correct.

However, if we are to follow an objective system of universal ethics that is augmented by divine revelation, then you are horribly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of logical fallacies here.

A rational ethical code is not subjective, nor does it require or assume man's omniscience. The laws of physics, for example, aren't "whatever I think is right." And I can comprehend them even though I know I am capable of error, and that I can be wrong.

We don't know everything, but we know some things. I design guidance & control systems for spacecraft for a living. I know that, to first order approximation, the motion of spacecraft follow Newton's laws. (And for certain long range sensors, I must take relativistic effects into account to accurately process measurements.) I must rigorously and objectively apply this knowledge to enable spacecraft to work.

In the same way, I also know that to murder and to steal is wrong. And I must apply this knowledge of objective ethical truths if I want to live, in the words of Aristotle, the "good life."

[/ QUOTE ]

We are actually in complete agreement on this. What I severely contest then is your assertion that Catholic moral theologians espouse anything evil, which is your original claim. In fact, the very foundation of Catholic moral theology lies on Aristotelian ethics.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I check that I understood you correctly here? Is the bolded part in yukoncpa's post what you consider a good example of being violent yet perfectly good? Because I cant imagine Jesus advocating this, nor can I see how this is following his teaching. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does an all powerfull benevolent god desire to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity?



[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, this "god" (as described by xtians) is hideously evil almost beyond comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or this "god" is being hideously misdescribed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am describing the version of "god" which condemns people to "hell." That's evil no matter how you slice it. I realize not all self-described Christians believe in a literally hell. (Though I may consider their god evil in other ways.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean hideously misdescribed by you, I meant by the christians who claim he desires to punish those who do not believe in him for eternity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I dont think punishing heretics was an example of ethical behaviour, I think it was the result of the church being a body interested in promoting its own power and influence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. But this doctrine cannot be so blithely dismissed. It was justified theologically (i.e. by Aquinas), and remained part of the Catholic ethical code for hundreds of years. It also continued in a "watered-down" version for a long time after that, such as exemplified the well known imprisonment of Galileo. Even Newton, years later, almost got into legal trouble for his "heretical" physics.

The point is, one can justify these actions only by accepting a certain theological interpretation on faith.

[ QUOTE ]

I think there are many examples of churches adopting positions which are not "good" - to me this isnt damning of theism, it is damning of those religions - or at least evidence that they are not concerned solely with promoting what is right.

[/ QUOTE ]

But how would you reject the official Church doctrine of death for heresy as not being "right," if not by reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
My position, although having faith in a personal God, is that reason is a good guide to how he wants me to behave and to how I should behave. I cant demonstrate to you that God exists, nor do I think you should be swayed by the fact that I believe he does. Nonetheless, I can proceed from that position using reason - I'm not sure if you are implying people with faith using reason to explore their faith are behaving in a self-contradictory manner (please clarify if I have got the gist wrong). If so, I dont see this.

I believe in God and am happy to maintain a distinction between him and the various churches. It is entirely conceivable to me that every human religion is a distortion of his view at best or an evil con at worst - whilst still being true that he exists.

[surftheiop]

"In the same way, I also know that to murder and to steal is wrong"

Why is it wrong if there isnt some greater moral authority?

[MidGe]

To murder is wrong because it is one of the commandments:

"Thou shall not kill"

Addendums to this commandment:

Except, in a just war, if oredred by god or his representaives, by lethal injection for a person found guilty in a criminal court, if an heretic, if suspected to being a witch or a communist, in self-defence, under provocation, to defend one's property, etc... etc...

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My position, although having faith in a personal God, is that reason is a good guide to how he wants me to behave and to how I should behave. I cant demonstrate to you that God exists, nor do I think you should be swayed by the fact that I believe he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I don't disagree with your position, even though I don't share your faith.

I disagree with those who claim divine revelation is necessary to define an ethical code. In fact, I claim divine revelation is, on the contrary, subversive of morality, because the science of ethics is no different than any other field of inquiry, and therefore can only be understood via reason.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
"In the same way, I also know that to murder and to steal is wrong"

Why is it wrong if there isnt some greater moral authority?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a complicated question to answer; it's like asking *why* does the gravitational force approximately act according to an inverse square law. (Or equivalently, why does matter "deform" the 4d space-time continuum.)

I consider it, like fundamental physical laws, to be a moral axiom, or "self-evident" as Jefferson put it. The reason (in so far as an axiom can be "proven") has to do with man's nature: it is against my life to be murdered, and I cannot logically claim any preferred moral authority over anyone else. I agree with the idea of natural rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights)

[surftheiop]

The point about murder and not claiming authority is really good.

What about cases of things that most would say are morally wrong but cause no harm to another person, such as say standing by your neighbors window and watching them have sex through it? (Lets say they never knew about it because if they did it would cause emotional harm).

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
The point about murder and not claiming authority is really good.

What about cases of things that most would say are morally wrong but cause no harm to another person, such as say standing by your neighbors window and watching them have sex through it? (Lets say they never knew about it because if they did it would cause emotional harm).

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can watch them while remaining on your property, I'd say that's their fault for leaving the window unshaded. If you are trespassing, that's a violation of their property rights and morally wrong. (You may be able to construct a "borderline" case in which you watch them from a public street, but you get the idea.)

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldnt the absence from him be punishment enough??

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does the Bible go through pains to specifically mention on several occasions everlasting fire, burning, torment, "wailing and gnashing of teeth", then?

Those who have dificulty explaining why a loving God would condemn people to eternal torment can say, "Oh, it just means you don't get to be with God."

Is this not just a rationalization? And isn't it against the rules for Christians to interpret the Bible in whatever way they want? What is the point if everyone can just make up their own version of what hell is or isn't?

If heaven and hell really exist, then they are not open to our interpretation. They are the way they are. To state, "it's just a separation from God" is no different that saying, "hell is just eternity in a room watching Love Boat reruns." They are both just wild guesses with absolutely no basis in fact.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to know what we define as nice and compassionate before answering that. The problem is that people are just making assumptions about what these things are and not showing specifically how the teachings of Christ are contradicted.

You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few posts ago you said this: [ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that sentiment your idea of conducting yourself according to the teachings of christ?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, these questions are being asked irrespective of Christ's teachings.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I check that I understood you correctly here? Is the bolded part in yukoncpa's post what you consider a good example of being violent yet perfectly good? Because I cant imagine Jesus advocating this, nor can I see how this is following his teaching. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Catholic Moral Theology, Christ's teachings are perfectly compatible with this type of thinking. Just because he had long hair and a beard does not make Jesus a hippy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
...According to Catholic Moral Theology...

[/ QUOTE ]

By that, you mean the amendments made by by the catholic church to ten commandments?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I check that I understood you correctly here? Is the bolded part in yukoncpa's post what you consider a good example of being violent yet perfectly good? Because I cant imagine Jesus advocating this, nor can I see how this is following his teaching. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Catholic Moral Theology, Christ's teachings are perfectly compatible with this type of thinking. Just because he had long hair and a beard does not make Jesus a hippy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then I think Catholic Moral Theology is flawed. How on earth can you reconcile this with:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

Show me a quote from Jesus suggesting you can ever be "violent yet perfectly good at the same time." I dont usually stray into theology, but if this is truly catholic doctrine then I think it is one of the best arguments to not be catholic.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need to know what we define as nice and compassionate before answering that. The problem is that people are just making assumptions about what these things are and not showing specifically how the teachings of Christ are contradicted.

You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]

A few posts ago you said this: [ QUOTE ]
Simply, there are people here who criticize religion because it can be violent, intolerant, or not very "nice". These people assume that the meaning of life must be about "compassion" or being "nice" to each other. Why should it be so? Why should anyone give a damn about being nice to anyone? What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that sentiment your idea of conducting yourself according to the teachings of christ?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No, these questions are being asked irrespective of Christ's teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
so it's a bit like not having a dog at all.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
"hell is just eternity in a room watching Love Boat reruns."

[/ QUOTE ]

God is evil.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who have dificulty explaining why a loving God would condemn people to eternal torment can say, "Oh, it just means you don't get to be with God."

Is this not just a rationalization?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know what you mean by rationalization in this context (or if rationalization is a bad thing as you seem to be saying). I think we do this all the time - I have a belief in God whose attributes are largely inaccessible to me so I apply logic to my beliefs to see if I can deduce what those attributes are. I cant imagine god as I envisage him to have created hell as it is usually described so I speculate about other ways it could be.

[ QUOTE ]
And isn't it against the rules for Christians to interpret the Bible in whatever way they want?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is essential to being an ethical christian that you make an effort to interpret the bible rather than just following rules blindly.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the point if everyone can just make up their own version of what hell is or isn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think we can make it up - if hell exists, then I agree that there's a reality to it. But I think we can speculate about the afterlife/hell/etc and I think the point of this speculating is the same as any philosophical musing - it provides guidance as to how I should live now.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is essential to being an ethical christian that you make an effort to interpret the bible rather than just following rules blindly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what you meant when you called yourself a heretic?

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I cant imagine god as I envisage him to have created hell as it is usually described so I speculate about other ways it could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you are saying. My point is that it's all speculation, which in a way (at least to me) almost negates hell as a reality. You see God as loving, so you create a version of hell that you can reconcile with that image. Others see hell as a place where the injustice of the world is evened out, so monsters like Hitler will suffer in eternal torment. There are almost as many ideas of what hell is like as there are believers... which makes the whole idea seem more like an abstract philosophical idea, and less like a real "place" bad people (or non-believers) go to after they die.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is essential to being an ethical christian that you make an effort to interpret the bible rather than just following rules blindly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the world would be a better place if every Christian agreed with this.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we can make it up - if hell exists, then I agree that there's a reality to it. But I think we can speculate about the afterlife/hell/etc and I think the point of this speculating is the same as any philosophical musing - it provides guidance as to how I should live now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. But what if your personal idea of hell is wrong? What if hell is really a fiery furnace where non-believers are tortured for eternity? Wouldn't this change the attitude you currently have towards God? In other words, in order to love God some people may need to believe he couldn't be so cruel. But there is nothing but hope to back up this claim, especially when both testaments of the bible paint a much different picture of hell. So, while your personal version of hell might be comforting, that does not make it likely to be true.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we can make it up - if hell exists, then I agree that there's a reality to it. But I think we can speculate about the afterlife/hell/etc and I think the point of this speculating is the same as any philosophical musing - it provides guidance as to how I should live now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. But what if your personal idea of hell is wrong? What if hell is really a fiery furnace where non-believers are tortured for eternity? Wouldn't this change the attitude you currently have towards God? In other words, in order to love God some people may need to believe he couldn't be so cruel. But there is nothing but hope to back up this claim, especially when both testaments of the bible paint a much different picture of hell. So, while your personal version of hell might be comforting, that does not make it likely to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed - my opinion has no bearing on the likelihood of it being true. It is still an important thing for me to form a view on - it is considerations like this that provide the only real way to test my theism and to modify it or discard it if my position becomes untenable (ie internally inconsistent)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is essential to being an ethical christian that you make an effort to interpret the bible rather than just following rules blindly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what you meant when you called yourself a heretic?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's probably at the heart of it. I dont consider heresy a crime against god but a crime against the church. I have reason to believe God exists but not a lot of reasons to believe any particular church is an authority on what he wants.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
No, my arguments are factual. Look it up yourself. I can't bottle feed you all the time. What Aquinas have your read by the way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite a bit actually. Enough to know that he thought the earth was at the center of the universe, that witches could and did have congress with devils and a horde of easily as quaint (?) and irrational beliefs.

Here are some quotes about what to do with heretics from saint(???) Aquinas:



Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 1/2

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

Aquin.: SMT SS Q[11] A[3] Body Para. 2/2

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Peter,
I understood your first post more clearly. If a serial rapist, enters my home with a weapon, I’ll try to hurt him or kill him. But even so, I’m still being nice, and compassionate ( to my family members ).
Your second post confuses the issue. Jesus Christ taught compassion. If you believe in him, should you not be compassionate? You say: "What eternal rewards can I get for being "nice" or "compassionate"?"

You get eternal rewards for believing in Jesus. If you’re a true believer, shouldn’t you follow his commandments, which include being nice and compassionate?

[/ QUOTE ]
You have given a good example of where one can be violent yet perfectly good at the same time. I would like the critics to give examples of evils conducted in the name of Christ that followed his teachings.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can I check that I understood you correctly here? Is the bolded part in yukoncpa's post what you consider a good example of being violent yet perfectly good? Because I cant imagine Jesus advocating this, nor can I see how this is following his teaching. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

According to Catholic Moral Theology, Christ's teachings are perfectly compatible with this type of thinking. Just because he had long hair and a beard does not make Jesus a hippy. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then I think Catholic Moral Theology is flawed. How on earth can you reconcile this with:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

Show me a quote from Jesus suggesting you can ever be "violent yet perfectly good at the same time." I dont usually stray into theology, but if this is truly catholic doctrine then I think it is one of the best arguments to not be catholic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Peter - I dont know if you are ignoring this or didnt see it, but i'd be very interested in hearing some sort of justification for how violence can ever be reconciled with jesus's teaching - I think the citation from Mathew I gave is clear indication that he would oppose the use of violence in the hypothetical situation alluded to.

What makes catholic theologians think violence is ever justified?