Theists: Why does god punish people after death?

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ 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?