Problems with the Heaven Concept

[jonJ]

Once you impose an absolute moral code on all humans, which an entity like God who sits outside can do, then penalties can be established for violating that moral code.

But then it's not a moral code, is it? It's a legal code. And any authority which respects human rights makes their legal codes publicly available, applies them equitably to everyone, supports an appeal process, and carries out their judgments in public where they can be seen to be be in accordance with the rules.

Your God's just not very good at this human rights stuff, is he?

 

[Mageth]

I think Rutch is trying to imply that without God, we have no real moral code, thus we cannot justify calling anything in The Books 'bad.'
He's saying we can't explain why eternal torment is bad, without first establishing a godless morality foundation and proving that it's worth a shit.

Without the Bible, there are no absolutes. Whatever moral code exists would be relative and differ from one group to another.

Once you impose an absolute moral code on all humans, which an entity like God who sits outside can do, then penalties can be established for violating that moral code.

If you were really familiar with your Bible you would know that your God does not appear to judge people based on whether or how they follow an alleged "absolute moral code". (BTW, I've read the Bible, and I've found no such thing as an "absolute moral code" in there...???)

Rules are not morality, never have been and never will be. A moral person is not moral because he follows an imposed "moral code". Morality comes from the inside, and a moral person makes moral judgments based upon many factors. As such, morality is always subjective, and a moral person does not blindly submit to an externally imposed "moral code". Look to the stories of that guy named "Jesus" ... one thing he consistently did was blast away at those in his time who promoted the notion of an "absolute moral code" like you're doing.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

 

[Kharakov]

Morality comes from the inside, and a moral person makes moral judgments based upon many factors. As such, morality is always subjective, and a moral person does not blindly submit to an externally imposed "moral code". Look to the stories of that guy named "Jesus" ... one thing he consistently did was blast away at those in his time who promoted the notion of an "absolute moral code" like you're doing.

What do you think of the view that behaving in certain ways (such as causing harm to a beneficial member of society) is absolutely immoral, unless the benefit of such an act far outweighs the harm inflicted?

What of the simple, absolute morality of doing that which you believe is beneficial, rather than what you believe is harmful? We could be wrong about the harm or lack of harm of our specific beliefs about morality, but isn't it better to act in ways that we believe are beneficial?

Isn't absolute morality one of intent, rather than one of code? I can punch a friend in the head to make them laugh, or I can punch someone in the head to coerce them into doing something- which is moral? What if I am coercing someone who would harm another by inflicting pain upon them, is this moral?

Are you with those who would work together toward common goals of peace, harmony, pleasure, love and understanding, or are you against them?

 

[Kharakov]

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Not for me, but if this was the only way for people to learn to treat one another correctly, would you? What if people throw other people into various hells all the time, and the only way for them to learn to stop doing so is to be thrown into a hell in which they see the consequences of their behaviors for others?

 

[dockeen]

It's pretty clear from what rhutchin wrote that he believes it's actually a good thing because God says so. To rhutchin, Might Makes Right . We're make moral judgments based on our moral sense of what is right and wrong, while rhutchin's judgments are based on fiat - what God says defines what's good or bad, and fuck you, you're fucked if you think otherwise.

That's basically the situation. God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Once more, you affirm that you worship your god because he is powerful, not good. Doesn't matter one whit to you if he is a sick bastard.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Not for me, but if this was the only way for people to learn to treat one another correctly, would you? What if people throw other people into various hells all the time, and the only way for them to learn to stop doing so is to be thrown into a hell in which they see the consequences of their behaviors for others?

Since hell is eternal, how do you suggest that anyone consigned there ever "learns" anything?

 

[sdelsolray]

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

 

[Kharakov]

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Not for me, but if this was the only way for people to learn to treat one another correctly, would you? What if people throw other people into various hells all the time, and the only way for them to learn to stop doing so is to be thrown into a hell in which they see the consequences of their behaviors for others?

Since hell is eternal, how do you suggest that anyone consigned there ever "learns" anything?

How do you know hell is eternal? Seems like it would cause a lot of pain for an omnipresent being. Rather, maybe a bit of hell to teach beings various things, so that they do not act in ways that create hell.

 

[rhutchin]

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

 

[rhutchin]

It's pretty clear from what rhutchin wrote that he believes it's actually a good thing because God says so. To rhutchin, Might Makes Right . We're make moral judgments based on our moral sense of what is right and wrong, while rhutchin's judgments are based on fiat - what God says defines what's good or bad, and fuck you, you're fucked if you think otherwise.

That's basically the situation. God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Once more, you affirm that you worship your god because he is powerful, not good. Doesn't matter one whit to you if he is a sick bastard.

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

 

[dockeen]

I wonder if rhutchin's still around and can answer a question. It might have been asked already, I haven't read every post of the thread. But here it is:

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Not for me, but if this was the only way for people to learn to treat one another correctly, would you? What if people throw other people into various hells all the time, and the only way for them to learn to stop doing so is to be thrown into a hell in which they see the consequences of their behaviors for others?

Since hell is eternal, how do you suggest that anyone consigned there ever "learns" anything?

How do you know hell is eternal? Seems like it would cause a lot of pain for an omnipresent being. Rather, maybe a bit of hell to teach beings various things, so that they do not act in ways that create hell.

Most xtians believe in some form of hell as Eternal Conscious Torment or ECT. The idea of hell as some form of purification is in fact an idea that shows up in many universalist beliefs, and it is clearly a less evil idea than ECT.

 

[dockeen]

It's pretty clear from what rhutchin wrote that he believes it's actually a good thing because God says so. To rhutchin, Might Makes Right . We're make moral judgments based on our moral sense of what is right and wrong, while rhutchin's judgments are based on fiat - what God says defines what's good or bad, and fuck you, you're fucked if you think otherwise.

That's basically the situation. God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Once more, you affirm that you worship your god because he is powerful, not good. Doesn't matter one whit to you if he is a sick bastard.

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

Notice once more, when afforded an opportunity to testify to a positive nature for your god, you fall back on how powerful he is.

Ironically, Syed does the same thing

 

[rhutchin]

Would you throw people into hell if it was your choice?

Absolutely not - but that is because I am no better than anyone else, and I cannot judge others on a different basis than I judge myself.

God, however, is better than everyone else and He can judge according to the standards He sets. However, His standards only determine who enters heaven and who is left outside. If a person does not want to enter heaven, there is no reason why he should have to meet God's standards.

 

[dockeen]

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

Interesting how you assume it was the scriptures that he was referring to, rather than your testimony.

 

[rhutchin]

It's pretty clear from what rhutchin wrote that he believes it's actually a good thing because God says so. To rhutchin, Might Makes Right . We're make moral judgments based on our moral sense of what is right and wrong, while rhutchin's judgments are based on fiat - what God says defines what's good or bad, and fuck you, you're fucked if you think otherwise.

That's basically the situation. God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Once more, you affirm that you worship your god because he is powerful, not good. Doesn't matter one whit to you if he is a sick bastard.

Not only powerful, but more powerful than anything else - and able to exert His will over everything else. Thus, if God chooses to hold people accountable for their actions, He can do so - and nobody can stop Him.

Notice once more, when afforded an opportunity to testify to a positive nature for your god, you fall back on how powerful he is.

The specific issue raised was God's power. Certainly, it is proper to worship God because He is powerful (as well as His other attributes).

- - - Updated - - -

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

Interesting how you assume it was the scriptures that he was referring to, rather than your testimony.

Merely correcting and properly directing comments to a proper focus. It is the Scripture and what it asserts that is at issue - not anything I might assert.

 

[bilby]

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

The scriptures are fiction. There is no reason to choose the Bible over the Quran, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Tripitaka or Dianetics. For each of these scriptures, there is a large community who accept theirs, and reject the others; all for the exact same 'reasons', and with the same level of unjustified confidence.

The assertions of scripture are valueless; any belief system built upon scripture is right on any subject only by coincidence, and is equally valueless.

If you want to support the claims that God created the universe, or that God sets the rules, or both, then you are going to need something other than scripture to achieve this.

If you do not want to support these claims, then you will only persuade those who are already persuaded - which seems like a pretty pointless exercise.

Your argument from authority accomplishes nothing.

 

[rhutchin]

The scriptures are fiction.

You have faith that the Scriptures are fiction. I have faith that they are truth. I have no objection to your faith. Go for it.

 

[bilby]

The scriptures are fiction.

You have faith that the Scriptures are fiction. I have faith that they are truth. I have no objection to your faith. Go for it.

You have faith that the scriptures are truth.

I have evidence that the scriptures are fiction.

Not all opinions are equally valid; opinions that are supported by observation are worth more than those that are unsupported.

Your scriptures contain statements that are demonstrably untrue, when compared to observed reality; worse still, they contain statements that are incompatible with other statements elsewhere within the scriptures themselves.

 

[sdelsolray]

…
God created the universe, and He sets the rules. Until someone comes along who can nullify those rules, those rules prevail.

Another "Mr. Mere Religious Assertion" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

The is the assertion of the Scriptures. Calling the Scriptures shallow and narcissistic accomplishes nothing.

Excuse me then. "Mr. Bibliolatry" speaks, with all the cowardice, shallowness and narcissism that usually entails, of course.

You attempt to avoid responsibility for your mere assertions is duly noted, and quite expected.

 

[Kharakov]

Most xtians believe in some form of hell as Eternal Conscious Torment or ECT. The idea of hell as some form of purification is in fact an idea that shows up in many universalist beliefs, and it is clearly a less evil idea than ECT.

Most xtians? I don't know of any that believe that, or believe in the morality of such a situation.

Sending someone to eternal hell sounds more like some childish imagining of what a child would do to some person who had wronged them.

The other side is this: the various heavens are delicate and those who love to disturb the peace and cause arguments, etc. are not let in for the same reason you don't let certain assholes into certain bars (they are 86ed)- they disturb the peace and joy of those within.

Then again, I've experienced a few forms of ECT, all of which gave me a bit of perspective. The "E" was obviously not Eternal, but the experiences of infinite, eternal pain really made me a bit mellower in relation to the little aches, pains, and worries of reality.

ECT is a part of me forever. And with perspective, sometimes the "hells" look so fucking cool. People hate watching scary movies, don't they?