God loves no one

[Lonewulf]

That was... picky of you.

I notice you ignored large amounts of my post, that clarified what I meant far more than you seem to recognize.

 

[Cavemonster]

How many children think that being beaten to a bloody pulp or being sexually abused isn't power-mad cruelty, and actually thinks it might actually be normal? Hell or long periods of torture in the afterlife make no more sense than torturing someone in this one -- especially when those actions are justified by lack of experience, education, or simply being exposed to "the wrong ideas".

If that punishment is "you didn't serve me", then sorry, but I can't accept that. My reason won't allow me to.

If a deity were loving, then they could accept me even if I didn't serve them and do exactly what they wanted me to. Christianity almost always demands servitude to God, or to be servile to His Son. There are very few exceptions amongst the denominations.

You've moved the goalposts. Your OP states that a loving god, is mutually exclusive with a god who punishes people in the afterlife.

Now you're talking about a loving god being mutually exclusive with certain specific punishment doctines of specific forms of Christianity. Other religions have other ideas about what those punishments consist of and what merits them. Some Jewish cultures believe that hell is a place where people are cleansed for a short period of time before being allowed into heaven, a time-out corner to think about what you've done.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

For 1, the idea of hell and most conceptions I hear of punishment in the afterlife are pretty nasty. Zoroastrianism is one of the exceptions, except for the whole "one person taking on all of your sins" thing. That's not very cool.

Yeah - it's amazing how much people can extrapolate from the relatively few metaphors that are in the bible.

For 2, the spiritual realm and the material realm are distinct according to religion (or else the soul would be material and die with the body), and most of what we do on the material world has material causes. Lust (which really honestly shouldn't be much of a sin, honestly, until you get into the extremes like rape, child or adult), greed, murder, etc. These are the result of thought processes in the brain, based on our experiences and our limited knowledge here on the world. Punishing us for that limited knowledge or those experiences seems no less silly than 1.

I would have to say that assuming God can see the situation perfectly and He's actual Fair in the whole process (that is, He actually contemplates and considers all the variables involved) - the punishment should be appropriate for all those you listed taken in all the reasons you listed.

The more we understand of how our minds and brains work, the more this becomes clear. For instance, why is one sociopathic (I bring this up for sociopaths that actually do bad things)? Is it because they willingly let their souls become dark, or because of processes in the brain beyond their control? Why does it make sense to punish their soul, after they are dead, when this would free them from the very constraints they had in life? It's much like with Adam and Eve. "Hey! You now understand what right and wrong are! Congratulations, what you did was wrong, here is your punishment!"

I agree - assuming they are freed from all external and internal physical variables that caused those actions by their death all that would be left the would be what was truly their role and choice in the matter and also their self-awareness (and hopefully remorse) at what was done.

 

[Lonewulf]

You've moved the goalposts. Your OP states that a loving god, is mutually exclusive with a god who punishes people in the afterlife.

If you've read my posts in full, you'll see that I've responded to, more or less, the whole spectrum of goal posts.

Other religions have other ideas about what those punishments consist of and what merits them. Some Jewish cultures believe that hell is a place where people are cleansed for a short period of time before being allowed into heaven, a time-out corner to think about what you've done.

Which also implies, still, that God was too impotent to explain it to us here in the material world.

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah - it's amazing how much people can extrapolate from the relatively few metaphors that are in the bible.

It's amazing what people will call "metaphor" as soon as they realize they don't agree with it.

I would have to say that assuming God can see the situation perfectly and He's actual Fair in the whole process (that is, He actually contemplates and considers all the variables involved) - the punishment should be appropriate for all those you listed taken in all the reasons you listed.

A lot of assumptions to make. In fact, I would even go so far as to say, with these variables, and considering that all of our actions are ultimately the product of our material brains, that it's impossible to punish fairly.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

That was... picky of you.

I notice you ignored large amounts of my post, that clarified what I meant far more than you seem to recognize.

I read your barn analogy. Didn't ignore it - but didn't know what else of a response I could add.

I suppose I could have added I think God has let us know what to do - but that's because I'm a Christian - so that would be stating the obvious.

 

[Lonewulf]

I suppose I could have added I think God has let us know what to do - but that's because I'm a Christian - so that would be stating the obvious.

But, as I'm an Atheist, and I am as capable of reason as you are, the assumption is either:

1) I do not agree with you because I am not actually capable of reason.

2) You have access to knowledge not available to me (and can make available to me), but either choose not to or can't be bothered.

3) You have access to knowledge not available to me, that can not convince me even though I am capable of reason.

Thus, the metaphor of the uncles and aunts works. And unlike the father, God has no excuse.

Punishing me would be unjust under 1, 2, or 3.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's amazing what people will call "metaphor" as soon as they realize they don't agree with it.

I'm fairly confident when Jesus used the word Gehenna it was as a metaphor. He liked using metaphors and hyperbole.

A lot of assumptions to make.

Not alot - but we both have to make some others how could we proceed. You assume God's unfair. I assume He's fair. You assume He's unujust. I assume He's Just.

And I'll agree - God and Hell as described and preached by many Preachers is abhorrent to me. But I don't believe them. I'm glad you don't either.

In fact, I would even go so far as to say, with these variables, and considering that all of our actions are ultimately the product of our material brains, that it's impossible to punish fairly.

We humans can only do our best. The God I believe in can see it all to clear and the punishment will be appropriate, fair, and have a purpose - ultimately to reconcile His Children back to Him.

 

[Cavemonster]

If you've read my posts in full, you'll see that I've responded to, more or less, the whole spectrum of goal posts.

Which also implies, still, that God was too impotent to explain it to us here in the material world.

But this is the Omnipotence vs. Free will issue, which only invalidates a God who claims perfect Omnipotence to the absolute logic bounds of the concept.

That sort of Omnipotence is not necessary for a God. When you are a toddler, your parents created you, they created the environment you live in, in most cases they know what's best for you much better than you do, the fact that they are imperfect does not make them any less the creators of you and the world you live in, and the providers of food, and the law givers.

You started off saying that a God cannot both punish and love, but this is based on a large number of underlying assumptions that are not necessary for a being to be considered a god.

An entity could
A) Have created the universe and the humans in it
B) Love some or all of those humans
C) Enact some sort of punishment on some of those humans after their death.

If you take as a given that a being could create the universe, and that some sort of soul remains after death to actually be punished, the there is nothing mutually exclusive between love and punishment until you start dragging in the ephemera from some specific religion.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

But, as I'm an Atheist, and I am as capable of reason as you are, the assumption is either:

1) I do not agree with you because I am not actually capable of reason.

2) You have access to knowledge not available to me (and can make available to me), but either choose not to or can't be bothered.

3) You have access to knowledge not available to me, that can not convince me even though I am capable of reason.

Thus, the metaphor of the uncles and aunts works. And unlike the father, God has no excuse.

Punishing me would be unjust under 1, 2, or 3.

You're whole thesis on this point, if I understand you correctly, is that God never explained to us on how we should act and thus it's wrong to punish us. Is this correct?

 

[Lonewulf]

Not alot - but we both have to make some others how could we proceed. You assume God's unfair. I assume He's fair. You assume He's unujust. I assume He's Just.

I assume based on the availability of evidence, not in spite of it. (In this case, "evidence" is dependent on what you get out of the bible).

And I'll agree - God and Hell as described and preached by many Preachers is abhorrent to me. But I don't believe them. I'm glad you don't either.

Okay, so kind of afterlife do you believe in, then?

We humans can only do our best. The God I believe in can see it all to clear and the punishment will be appropriate, fair, and have a purpose - ultimately to reconcile His Children back to Him.

But if the rationale cannot be made in the world of reason and logic, then why must one assume that he is truly reasonable?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'll just take that as a sign you didn't read my posts after all.

No reason to continue, then.

Tip: Look at my metaphor of the barn.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

Okay, so kind of afterlife do you believe in, then?

Afterlife? I don't have clue. I hope it's like the happiest moments of my life, but happier.

I think you meant what kind of punishment I believe. Is that correct?

 

[Cavemonster]

I'll just take that as a sign you didn't read my posts after all.

No reason to continue, then.

Tip: Look at my metaphor of the barn.

The rolling eyes were because you didn't hit the full range of goalposts, and it would be a ridiculous endeavor to quote and respond to your 3 pages worth of posts to show that you didn't.

Your barn metaphor is terrible and shows that you've never had children, especially not teenagers.

Children can think of a million things to do wrong that you never specifically warned them not to do. What, you never told your nine year old kid specifically that he couldn't fill all the pillowcases with jelly? Well then no punishment, right?

You can't possibly notify your children of every possible wrong they could do, but it's perfectly reasonable to punish them for not using sense.

 

[Lonewulf]

Afterlife? I don't have clue. I hope it's like the happiest moments of my life, but happier.

I think you meant what kind of punishment I believe. Is that correct?

If you don't believe in any kind of punishment in the afterlife, then it isn't relevant, after all.

 

[Cavemonster]

Ah yes, the whole "You don't have it, so you can't know" bullspit.

Exactly the opposite, "You don't know, so I assume you don't have it"

So you don't tell him why what he did was wrong, you just lash out without warning.

WONDERFUL father, you must be.

What the hell are you talking about.
If you come home, and your kid who's old enough to know better has, let's say thrown a bowling ball through the kitchen window, how is grounding him "lashing out without warning"? Do I need to tell a 12 year old ahead of time to NOT throw a bowling ball through a window for grounding to be appropriate?

Really?

Seriously, answer this question. If your 12 year old throws a bowling ball through the kitchen window, even though you never told him ahead of time not to throw bowling balls through kitchen windows, is grounding him proof that you can't possibly love him?

Your argument was far more terrible than you think my metaphor was, so I'm going to ignore your argument as you ignored my metaphor.

That's an odd thing to say when I just responded to your metaphor

 

[Lonewulf]

What the hell are you talking about.

I'm making it applicable to the way religion works.

If you come home, and your kid who's old enough to know better has, let's say thrown a bowling ball through the kitchen window.

So name me one sin that I'm supposed to automatically "know" will be objectively wrong to the universe?

Seriously, answer this question. If your 12 year old throws a bowling ball through the kitchen window, even though you never told him ahead of time not to throw bowling balls through kitchen windows, proof that you can't possibly love him?

If I waited several years to punish him in the afterlife, without ever once correcting him throughout his life in any overt way? Yes.

Next question?

That's an odd thing to say when I just responded to your metaphor

Right after you said you were deliberately ignoring all the other points I've made in my three posts.

 

[Cavemonster]

I'm making it applicable to the way religion works.

You're making it applicable to the way certain factions of certain religions work.

So name me one sin that I'm supposed to automatically "know" will be objectively wrong to the universe?

You don't know when you've done something wrong? You really have no moral compass?

In the case of the kid and the bowling ball, it doesn't matter if he knew, it mattered that he should know.

If I waited several years to punish him in the afterlife, without ever once correcting him throughout his life in any overt way? Yes.

You've never heard the phrase, wait till you father get's home? If you accept an eternal soul, the paltry amount of time a human actually lives doesn't amount to much waiting.

Right after you said you were deliberately ignoring all the other points I've made in my three posts.

I didn't say I was ignoring them, I said I wouldn't respond individually to 3 pages of posts to show what wasn't in them, that would be like responding to every page of the bible to prove there isn't a purple giraffe in there.

I read them, and they didn't cover what you stated they did.

 

[shayes666]

I think Slayer says it best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hf-KJYE7zs

Ahh, the soothing dilucid sounds of Slayer.

 

[Lonewulf]

You don't know when you've done something wrong? You really have no moral compass?

Some people don't. Have you heard of "sociopathy"? "Psychopathy"?

You think people choose to be that way? Because according to your argument, they'd be punished just like anyone else.

And very few people do something thinking what they're doing is 100% wrong; they usually justify it. Justifications have been used throughout time, and can demonstrably, empirically be shown to be a part of the human thinking process (or else you believe that only recently have humans developed this).

If a just god actually cared, he would factor that, just like a father should factor that he shouldn't strike a toddler because he dropped a glass of milk.

In the case of the kid and the bowling ball, it doesn't matter if he knew, it mattered that he should know.

If he's dead, and punished for it several decades later, seems a little late to me.

You've never heard the phrase, wait till you father get's home? If you accept an eternal soul, the paltry amount of time a human actually lives doesn't amount to much waiting.

And this is where the analogy falls apart, because it still makes no sense, especially when you compare the material with the spiritual. When the mother says "Just wait until your father gets home", she's still instilling fear into the child. This analogy breaks down because there is "Just wait until you die, mortal!" It's "listen to a bunch of random preachers tell you what you need to do to not avoid punishment in the future, blah blah blah, and figure it out for yourself". Furthermore, the mother does this because she is unwilling to punish the child herself (or wants the father to be seen as the authoritarian figure).


Here's a question: If someone loses all of their memories, do they become a different person?

If someone loses their memories, should they be punished for things they did that they don't recall doing? Not talking logic that a court of law would use, but someone who was really thinking about whether they wanted to be just or "teach the person a lesson".

If memories are obviously keyed in with a physical part of the brain, then why would one be punished if they died after having Alzheimer's? And if something like Alzheimer's could destroy your memory, then by that logic, death of the body would cause the same thing.