Question for Christians who believe that non-Christians go to hell

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't you mean terrible "mistakes"?

Yes that works.

EDIT: don't see your point.

wolfsbane

dvpower wrote: »

Is not believing in God a sin (either directly or indirectly)?

Absolutely:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Well thats a bit of a cop out IMO. If you are going down the non-free will route then its not blackmail, its more like forced prostitution. I prefer to think we would have some choice as whether to love and worship god or not.

You misunderstand. Because he is supremely loveable, you only have to be exposed to God in order that you'll love him. Just like you only have to be exposed to the sun to get a tan. There's no choice involved in that (in the global, salvation sense).

Where your choice comes in is whether or not you want that which happens, by-the-by, to result in your being exposed to God.

You do choose. It's just that the choice isn't "to love God".

Yes but I choose the third option. Don't worship god and don't go to hell. Your view of God is restricting my options though. I prefer to think that heaven is a reward for the faithful but theres no punishment for not "joining the club". That would seem more just, no?

Your free will isn't being impinged upon by your inability to choose to flap your arms and fly. You have a choice of extremes; love that which God represents vs. love that which God doesn't represent.

You don't get to chose the options. You get to choose from options.

Yes if my car was burnt up it would bother me, but I still would not want my partner to be tortured for ever? Can you see the difference between being temporarily and justly angry, and punishing someone for eternity?

We were on the subject of forgiveness costing the forgiver. If you agree with the general principle then we can look at the specific.

I'm sorry, its not at all clear to me how someone can have no choice but to love. How did lucifer fall? There must be free will involved.

The choice is whether to stand in the sun or not. If choosing to stand in the sun then you have no choice but to be tanned. Tanned is a consequence of standing in the sun. Loving God is a consequence of being exposed to God.

Cost to me does not equal punishment. I am not being punished for their wrongdoing. The cost I bear is not equal in proportion to wrong doing. There isn't an equation or anything.

No there isn't. But formal law attempts to find a balance (hence outrage when a rapist gets a suspended sentence) and informal law attempts to find a balance: you'll grimace if your irate girlfriend keys your pride and joy. You'll suffer a bit more anguish than a grimace can express if she burns the house down after cancelling the house insurance.

The issue isn't precise eye-for-an-eye when if comes to forgiveness. Forgiveness means giving up the right to extract an eye-for-an-eye and swallowing some equivilent pain yourself

Eye-for-an-eye belongs to the realm of just punishment.

Equivilent cost belongs to the realm of just forgiveness.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Yes that works.

EDIT: don't see your point.

It's just that the rest of Ireland would likely heave it's dinner up if Brenden Smyth and his ilk stood up and said that what he had done was "a mistake".

Not perverted, not savage, not supremely selfish ... mistaken.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

Eye-for-an-eye belongs to the realm of just punishment.

Equivilent cost belongs to the realm of just forgiveness.

I consider eye-for-an-eye entirely immoral. I think this is the crux and we are never going to agree. :P

Anyway I'm taking a break from the Christianity forum for a bit, very frustrating and its wrecking my head but you for one have been quite polite in your responses thanks.

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just that the rest of Ireland would likely heave it's dinner up if Brenden Smyth and his ilk stood up and said that what he had done was "a mistake".

Not perverted, not savage, not supremely selfish ... mistaken.

Its perverted and a mistake. Can be both at the same time.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

I consider eye-for-an-eye entirely immoral. I think this is the crux and we are never going to agree. :P

Luckily us Christian don't subscribe to such ideas. Still, I do remember a conversation with on famous internet atheist who claimed that the golden rule operated on this idea.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Its perverted and a mistake. Can be both at the same time.

Since words can mean anything you like, let's agree that the forgiven (whatever that means) perverts (whatever that means) will be in heaven (whatever that means) and the unforgiven ... perverts ... will ... be ... in ... hell.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

I consider eye-for-an-eye entirely immoral. I think this is the crux and we are never going to agree.

Anyone can consider anything to be anything they like (witness the mistake involved in murdering someone (as opposed to manslaugtering them).

Making a rational argument for it is another thing. You take A from me? I take equivilent A from you. Your suffering feels as bad to you because of my action as mine does because of your action. Eye-4-an-eye. Perfectly fair and reasonable..

You've a funny idea of immoral.

Anyway I'm taking a break from the Christianity forum for a bit, very frustrating and its wrecking my head but you for one have been quite polite in your responses thanks.

So long.. enjoyed the chat..

twinQuins

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone can consider anything to be anything they like (witness the mistake involved in murdering someone (as opposed to manslaugtering them).

Making a rational argument for it is another thing. You take A from me? I take equivilent A from you. Your suffering feels as bad to you because of my action as mine does because of your action. Eye-4-an-eye.

You'll forgive me if I consider this to be the kind of logic I'd expect of a petulant child.

Perfectly fair and reasonable.

No. Wrong.
You considering it to be "fair" and "reasonable" does not, in any way, make it so.

You've a funny idea of immoral.

You've a funny idea of what constitutes morality.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Luckily us Christian don't subscribe to such ideas. Still, I do remember a conversation with on famous internet atheist who claimed that the golden rule operated on this idea.

Ok, a couple more posts then I'm done. :P

Umm I know this is a favourite get out clause around here but if you read the above properly you will see that I was answering antiskeptic who does indeed does subscribe to such ideas. So your comment was pointless and wrong.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone can consider anything to be anything they like (witness the mistake involved in murdering someone (as opposed to manslaugtering them).

Making a rational argument for it is another thing. You take A from me? I take equivilent A from you. Your suffering feels as bad to you because of my action as mine does because of your action. Eye-4-an-eye. Perfectly fair and reasonable..

You've a funny idea of immoral.

Its immoral because its based on revenge. Its logical in the sense that it makes mathematical sense; one eye minus another eye equals zero - all square right!

But it's not logical in any other sense. Revenge is driven by human emotions, anger etc. If you stab my eye out, the only reason for me to stab your eye out is to make myself feel temporarily better; to appease my anger somewhat. As my mother would say, two wrongs do not make a right. Your act of eye stabbing was wrong, my act of eye stabbing was also wrong.

I really don't see how you can say this is reasonable. It's a petulant, childish form of morality. A higher morality would be one whereby you stab my out and I do not stab yours out in revenge. And yes I know that's unnatural for humans. If you stabbed my eye out I would be angry, and my first reaction would be revenge. But this reaction should be suppressed. In fact this is key to whether I respect a person or not. I do not respect someone who is quick to anger.

This form of morality becomes more ridiculous the more you think about it. Lets say a in a rage (don't ask me!) you drove all the way over to my house and ran over my dog repeatedly. Would it be in any way mature or moral for me to immediately get in my car and squash your cat? I mean seriously. Or revenge murder or revenger rape. "He raped people's children, now his children must be raped, its only fair..." Ridiculous.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long.. enjoyed the chat..

Same as.

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

Umm I know this is a favourite get out clause around here but if you read the above properly you will see that I was answering antiskeptic who does indeed does subscribe to such ideas. So your comment was pointless and wrong.

Oh, relax. It was a tongue in cheek response. I don't presume to speak for all Christians.

Seems as you find the concept of an eye-for-eye morality to be immoral, I wonder what it is you base your morality on?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Luckily us Christian don't subscribe to such ideas.

Luckily for the rest of us our modern systems of justice do.

Fanny Cradock

Interesting. So one atheist claims that eye-for-eye morality is immoral and another claims that our justice system is built on it.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh, relax. It was a tongue in cheek response. I don't presume to speak for all Christians.

Seems as you find the concept of an eye-for-eye morality to be immoral, I wonder what it is you base your morality on?

I base my morality on a form of utilitarianism. "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". BUT, having used a keyword I should say I've tried to work it out rationally for myself.

Well...its something I haven't finalised, its a work in progress but at the moment I define my morality as something like the following.

Two rules:

1. You are free to perform any action as long as this action does not harm any being.
2. Do not perform actions that stop others from doing rule one.

Definitions:

"harm" - knowingly cause pain or suffering
"being" - any creature that has a complex neural system and can feel pain or understand suffering.

CAVEAT: I am fully aware that this code of morality is impossible to fulfill 100% of the time. But I still think its a good idea to have a goal to shoot for. And like I said, a work in progress.

iUseVi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. So one atheist claims that eye-for-eye morality is immoral and another claims that our justice system is built on it.

Damn atheists! Always having differing opinions! Don't they have a holy book to teach them?!

Fanny Cradock

iUseVi wrote: »

I base my morality on a form of utilitarianism. "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". BUT, having used a keyword I should say I've tried to work it out rationally for myself.

Well...its something I haven't finalised, its a work in progress but at the moment I define my morality as something like the following.

Two rules:

1. You are free to perform any action as long as this action does not harm any being.
2. Do not perform actions that stop others from doing rule one.

Definitions:

"harm" - knowingly cause pain or suffering
"being" - any creature that has a complex neural system and can feel pain or understand suffering.

CAVEAT: I am fully aware that this code of morality is impossible to fulfill 100% of the time. But I still think its a good idea to have a goal to shoot for. And like I said, a work in progress.

It's a nice concept. I'm largely in agreement because I don't see (no pun intended) why we should have to settle for an eye-for-eye morality. We should have something better to aim for. Still, I can see some major problems with utilitarianism. I can't help but think that the desire for pleasure is in and of itself bound to cause pain or how one determines what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and how his sacks up against the desires of the individual. Anyway, it probably not the thread to be discussing utilitarianism. Apologies for the tangent.

antiskeptic

Morkarleth wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I consider this to be the kind of logic I'd expect of a petulant child.

I'm not sure what logic has to do with it so there is nothing to forgive.

The issue is whether I am in my rights to choose that you suffer precisely the same as I do in return for your actions. I can't see why not..

No. Wrong.
You considering it to be "fair" and "reasonable" does not, in any way, make it so.

You considering it unfair and unreasonable doesn't make it so either. Which is very eye-4-eye territory. Balanced equation territory.

Precisely what basis for complaint shall you raise for me giving you a smack in the eye in return for your giving me one?

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. So one atheist claims that eye-for-eye morality is immoral and another claims that our justice system is built on it.

Nearly as bad as us Christians...

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Ok, a couple more posts then I'm done

Welcome back!

Umm I know this is a favourite get out clause around here but if you read the above properly you will see that I was answering antiskeptic who does indeed does subscribe to such ideas. So your comment was pointless and wrong.

Er.. that I have no problem with the morality of eye-for-an-eye doesn't mean I subscribe to it. I've no problem with a CBR1000 but I wouldn't buy one myself..

Its immoral because its based on revenge. Its logical in the sense that it makes mathematical sense; one eye minus another eye equals zero - all square right!

Indeed. If you've unrighteously taken my eye out and I have to pay extra car insurance because of it then a moral remedy is that you suffer the exact same thing.

But it's not logical in any other sense. Revenge is driven by human emotions, anger etc. If you stab my eye out, the only reason for me to stab your eye out is to make myself feel temporarily better; to appease my anger somewhat. As my mother would say, two wrongs do not make a right. Your act of eye stabbing was wrong, my act of eye stabbing was also wrong.

We're assuming your initally taking my eye out wrong - as the starting point. I've been wronged. An unjust, unwarranted offence has been committed against me. I was innocent of anything.

There is now an imbalance in justice that needs dealing with. That justice can be dealt with with a ersatz-eye-for-an-eye, a kind of currency exchange in which you serve 4 years for the offence. Or we can leave the units of currency the same. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference in which currency the eye is extracted for in return. Eye for an eye only demands that it is

Our current justice system is based (at least in part) on eye for eye.

My taking your eye out in return isn't a wrong action on my part. All that is occurring is that balance is restored. Accounts thus settled, we should be able to shake hands.

I really don't see how you can say this is reasonable. It's a petulant, childish form of morality. A higher morality would be one whereby you stab my out and I do not stab yours out in revenge. And yes I know that's unnatural for humans. If you stabbed my eye out I would be angry, and my first reaction would be revenge. But this reaction should be suppressed. In fact this is key to whether I respect a person or not. I do not respect someone who is quick to anger.

You're taking of the alternative to eye-for-an-eye. Forgiveness. In which case, I forgo my right to extract your eye. I pay.

This form of morality becomes more ridiculous the more you think about it. Lets say a in a rage (don't ask me!) you drove all the way over to my house and ran over my dog repeatedly. Would it be in any way mature or moral for me to immediately get in my car and squash your cat? I mean seriously. Or revenge murder or revenger rape. "He raped people's children, now his children must be raped, its only fair..." Ridiculous.

The principle of eye-for-and-eye need not exact exact same revenge. The idea is that it doesn't involve forgiveness. It involves revenge.

Two ideas: forgiveness/revenge.

Which will God apply to you?

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're taking of the alternative to eye-for-an-eye. Forgiveness. In which case, I forgo my right to extract your eye. I pay.


The principle of eye-for-and-eye need not exact exact same revenge. The idea is that it doesn't involve forgiveness. It involves revenge.

Two ideas: forgiveness/revenge.

Which will God apply to you?

Mate it's been fun but I disagree with just about every word you write. I find your view absurd in the extreme. But nothing personal! There just ain't no middle ground between us! So may as well call it a night.

twinQuins

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure what logic has to do with it so there is nothing to forgive.

The issue is whether I am in my rights to choose that you suffer precisely the same as I do in return for your actions. I can't see why not..

Logic was evidently the wrong word. Mentality would have been better. A child would want to hurt someone the way they had been hurt.
I'd like to think most people could base a system of justice on something a little more sophisticated than that.

You considering it unfair and unreasonable doesn't make it so either.

I hope after reading this again you will realise just how ridiculous your initial claim was.

Precisely what basis for complaint shall you raise for me giving you a smack in the eye in return for your giving me one?

That my smacking you in the eye did not constitute a great enough threat to you for you to respond in the way you did.
Act in self defence, if you must but what you suggest is just incredibly petty.

If I pose no immediate danger to you what is stopping you from finding a peaceful resolution?

Fanny Cradock

Morkarleth wrote: »

If I pose no immediate danger to you what is stopping you from finding a peaceful resolution?

The history of conflict?

twinQuins

Care to elaborate or do you think it's self-explanatory?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Interesting. So one atheist claims that eye-for-eye morality is immoral and another claims that our justice system is built on it.

who claimed our justice system is built upon it?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Luckily for the rest of us our modern systems of justice do.

You do, unless I misunderstand your quote.

Fanny Cradock

Morkarleth wrote: »

Care to elaborate or do you think it's self-explanatory?

You don't actually have to be snotty, you know.

I would have thought that the innumerable conflicts throughout the ages would at least make one consider that it might not be always be possible for the potential victim to find a peaceful resolution because it is often the aggressor who is the barrier to such amicable ends.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Our current justice system is based (at least in part) on eye for eye.

No it isn't. Our current justice system is based on deterrent/security/rehabilitation.

You are not sent to jail for 4 years to clear up some imbalance in some quais-supernatural notion of karma. Punishment has not purpose in of itself. Nothing of any tangible value is actually balanced by you taking my eye because I took yours. It achieves nothing. All that happens if you are left with me without an eye and might pissed off about that. An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

In modern social democracies you are sent to jail in order to removed from harming others and to be rehabilitated so that you won't hurt others in the future. It is an act of social responsibility, not retribution.

The length of the sentence is a deterrent against others carrying out similar crimes.

It is in our nature to seek revenge, so it is some what understandable why people think our justice system is about revenge (send him to jail to make him suffer for what he did!) but it isn't actually. Revenge and retribution is a system of justice that has so many flaws few if any modern justice systems are based on it any more.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You do, unless I misunderstand your quote.

iUseVi said an eye for an eye is immoral.

You said thankfully Christians don't think like that

I said thankfully for the rest of us our justice system does.

Thought that was clear, but to clarify our justice system thinks an eye for an eye (revenge/retribution) is immoral.

Fanny Cradock

I actually meant that we don't subscribe to the eye for an eye morality. (Read the post again and I think it becomes apparent.) Crossed wires, I think.