Is altruism the key to a morally absolute afterlife?

[Loren Booda]

Those who believe in the existence of a soul often anticipate a day when they will be judged for heaven or hell. However, what marks the transition from one's worldly, morally relative being to that of absolute good and evil? Would there be segregation by overall ethics in this afterlife?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Those who believe in the existence of a soul often anticipate a day when they will be judged for heaven or hell. However, what marks the transition from one's worldly, morally relative being to that of absolute good and evil? Would there be segregation by overall ethics in this afterlife?

Of course the believers in heaven and hell specifically are the Christians. Other belief systems have other constructions, such as morally driven reincarnations. Christians take their beliefs from descriptions of Jesus' sayings in the gospels, and some inferences by others (Paul, mainly), together with the visions attributed to John in the apocalypse that closes the New Testament. These sources are available, but it doesn't seem that we could discuss or argue about them without treading on forbidden religious ground.

 

[Rader]

Those who believe in the existence of a soul often anticipate a day when they will be judged for heaven or hell. However, what marks the transition from one's worldly, morally relative being to that of absolute good and evil? Would there be segregation by overall ethics in this afterlife?

No, what there would be is a union of knowing what absolute morals are since we would not have to make judements with brains that no longer existed.

 

[moving finger]

Those who believe in the existence of a soul often anticipate a day when they will be judged for heaven or hell.

The premise of a divine creator who will one day impose a divine judgement implies that humans must have (libertarian) free will.

But (libertarian) free will is an illusion.

What place is there for divine judgement in a universe without (libertarian) free will?

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)

 

[selfAdjoint]

What place is there for divine judgement in a universe without (libertarian) free will?

Well the god of the Old testament has no problem with that. He first tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh's heart, then punishes Pharaoh for things he did with that hardened heart.

 

[Loren Booda]

Does physics negate the possibility that the whole of reality manifests intelligence? Put another way, anything (a galaxy, say) that contains reasoning beings (humans, say) might itself qualify as intelligent.

 

[moving finger]

Well the god of the Old testament has no problem with that. He first tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh's heart, then punishes Pharaoh for things he did with that hardened heart.

And you mean to tell me there are rational human beings who genuinely believe this is the act of a loving supreme being?

That kind of mean, nasty, conniving and tricky supreme being I can do without, thank you

Best Regards

MF

 

[moving finger]

Does physics negate the possibility that the whole of reality manifests intelligence? Put another way, anything (a galaxy, say) that contains reasoning beings (humans, say) might itself qualify as intelligent.

How do you define "intelligence" in this context?

MF

 

[Loren Booda]

moving finger,

Assuming I am intelligent, and I am a subset of the universe, would the universe therefore be considered intelligent?

 

[DaveC426913]

And you mean to tell me there are rational human beings who genuinely believe this is the act of a loving supreme being?

That kind of mean, nasty, conniving and tricky supreme being I can do without, thank you

Best Regards

MF

It is shamefully easy to take potshots at ultra-simplified factoids such as this.

 

[moving finger]

It is shamefully easy to take potshots at ultra-simplified factoids such as this.

Hey, don't shoot me, I'm not the one who pasted up the example of Pharaoh as a defence of the logical consistency of God in a universe without free will. I was just responding to it!

My point remains : The idea of a supreme creator in absence of genuine free will for his/her/its created beings is incoherent and nonsensical.

In other words, to remain coherent a belief in theism entails a belief in libertarian free will.

Best Regards

MF

 

[selfAdjoint]

Hey, don't shoot me, I'm not the one who pasted up the example of Pharaoh as a defence of the logical consistency of God in a universe without free will. I was just responding to it!

My point remains : The idea of a supreme creator in absence of genuine free will for his/her/its created beings is incoherent and nonsensical.

In other words, to remain coherent a belief in theism entails a belief in libertarian free will.

Best Regards

MF

Scuse me, but I was the one who posted the Pharaoh "factoid". It was a sufficient problem that St. Paul thought he had to deal with it, so it;'s not something a Christian of today is really free to shrug off.

And mf, I wasn't defending theism, I was sort of setting you up to express what we both believe. Naughty me.

 

[arildno]

The Christian idea of "sin&judgment", as for example developed by Augustine, has nothing whatsoever to do with a freely willed breach of some moral code, and the appropriate punishment of such acts.
It is only the "inherited sin" concept that makes sense of Jesus' role as "saviour".

What the Christian idea of sin really is, is the primitive idea of "evil as filth/defilement" something that adheres to you whether you want it to be there or not (See for example Paul Riceour's book on "The symbolism of evil").
The logical way to remove such a stain, is through an act of CLEANSING.

That is what "salvation" means in the Christian mindset; in affirming your "faith in Jesus", he in turn cleanses you of that stain which otherwise would make you unfit to meet the Creator.

There is nothing concerning the relevance of "free will" in this mindset,; it is just an extremely dumb deterministic model.

 

[moving finger]

The Christian idea of "sin&judgment", as for example developed by Augustine, has nothing whatsoever to do with a freely willed breach of some moral code, and the appropriate punishment of such acts.
It is only the "inherited sin" concept that makes sense of Jesus' role as "saviour".

What the Christian idea of sin really is, is the primitive idea of "evil as filth/defilement" something that adheres to you whether you want it to be there or not (See for example Paul Riceour's book on "The symbolism of evil").
The logical way to remove such a stain, is through an act of CLEANSING.

That is what "salvation" means in the Christian mindset; in affirming your "faith in Jesus", he in turn cleanses you of that stain which otherwise would make you unfit to meet the Creator.

There is nothing concerning the relevance of "free will" in this mindset,; it is just an extremely dumb deterministic model.

Free will is fundamental to the idea that faith leads to salvation.

If the world is deterministic (ie if free will in the libertarian sense does not exist) then my actions are determined by antecedent conditions; hence whether or not I have faith in Jesus is determined by those same conditions.

Why should I be refused salvation for something that is determined by antecedent conditions? The idea is nonsensical, therefore for the theist the premise that the world is deterministic must be false, and the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will.

Best Regards

MF

 

[Rade]

...Assuming I am intelligent, and I am a subset of the universe, would the universe therefore be considered intelligent?

You are a human, and thus a subset of the universe, would the universe thus be considered "human" ? I do not understand what you are asking.

 

[Les Sleeth]

If we can research the history of ideas behind any belief, why evaluate beliefs on face value or accept common opinion as worthy of discussing seriously?

The concept of judgment in Western religion, for example, is linked to the very old Jewish idea that bad things happen to people because they have not pleased God. It stems from pagan days before Moses, where each tribe had their own patron god. If you pleased your god, then you won wars and things went well; if you displeased your god, watch out! So when things were going bad, the priests would be wondering who was screwing up. This became a very strict thing, so much so that it became incorporated into the law of the land, the basis for theocracy, and the best followers obeyed not just the ten commandments, but all 633 precepts the faithful imagined God needed abided by to be pleased. In a way, it is fear of misfortune that drove this desire for perfect behavior.

Now, you can blame it on Moses, but he doesn’t come across as so anal; he just said, be good and love God. It was later interpreters, with all their karmic fears and concepts, who created the “religion.”

It is similar with Jesus. You cannot find anything concrete about hell and the devil in his words, which makes little sense if it is the threat that theologians today make of it. If hell/devil is real, then Jesus should have talked about it openly and often.

My view is that most people are superficial in their contemplation of all this. Moses had an inner experience and tried to communicate it in the language of and to the mindset of the time. Jesus had the same inner experience and spoke to how people understood then. You can’t blame guys having the original experience for what people developed over the centuries from their own ordinary experience.

The only choices I see are to accept that Moses, Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammed, et al found a new potential of consciousness, one that allowed them to experience something unavailable to ordinary consciousness, or we have to write them off as deluded.

However, real or deluded, that has nothing to do with the theological speculations that followed over the centuries.

 

[Loren Booda]

Rade

You are a human, and thus a subset of the universe, would the universe thus be considered "human" ? I do not understand what you are asking.

It would have the potential to be human. As far as information is additive, knowledge (intelligence) for a whole is at least the knowledge for anyone of its parts.

 

[arildno]

Free will is fundamental to the idea that faith leads to salvation.

If the world is deterministic (ie if free will in the libertarian sense does not exist) then my actions are determined by antecedent conditions; hence whether or not I have faith in Jesus is determined by those same conditions.

Why should I be refused salvation for something that is determined by antecedent conditions?

Essentially, because you stink in the nose of God, whether you want to or not. He doesn't bother with handing you the soap.

The idea is nonsensical, therefore for the theist the premise that the world is deterministic must be false, and the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will.

What about "virtuous heathens"?
They are consigned to Hell all the same..
It is the ideas of "salvation" and the idea that a non-human has absolute authority in saying how humans should act that are non-sensical.

Also, you should learn a bit more about church and doctrine history before you make breezing (and incorrect!) statements as to what theists should mean.
(Review for example, the highly influential tradition with Augustine's pre-destination theory)

 

[moving finger]

If the world is deterministic (ie if free will in the libertarian sense does not exist) then my actions are determined by antecedent conditions; hence whether or not I have faith in Jesus is determined by those same conditions.
Why should I be refused salvation for something that is determined by antecedent conditions?

Essentially, because you stink in the nose of God, whether you want to or not. He doesn't bother with handing you the soap.

And this is supposed to make rational sense? If God created me the way I am, and I had no choice about it, I sure hope He realizes the smell is His own doing!

for the theist the premise that the world is deterministic must be false, and the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will.

What about "virtuous heathens"?
They are consigned to Hell all the same.

Your response is not a rebuttal to my statement that the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will (in fact your response is totally irrelevant to the issue).
Which particular “heathens” are consigned to hell depends on which “God” is in charge, doesn’t it?

Also, you should learn a bit more about church and doctrine history before you make breezing (and incorrect!) statements as to what theists should mean.

With respect, I have studied such things, and I can respond to your above comment by saying that you should take the time and trouble to discuss issues rationally before accusing others of needing to learn more. If I have made an incorrect statement please do point it out.

Augustine's arguments are incoherent and ambiguous at best. If one takes his predestination argument as being that God simply has foreknowledge of human actions then what does that prove? Divine foreknowledge is not incompatible with free will. In the 6th century Boethius maintained that God is not in time and has no temporal properties, so God does not have beliefs at a time. It is therefore a mistake to say God had beliefs yesterday, or has beliefs today, or will have beliefs tomorrow. It is also a mistake to say God had a belief on a certain date, such as June 1, 2004. The way Boethius describes God's cognitive grasp of temporal reality, all temporal events are before the mind of God at once. To say "at once" or "simultaneously" is to use a temporal metaphor, but Boethius is clear that it does not make sense to think of the whole of temporal reality as being before God's mind in a single temporal present. It is an atemporal present, a single complete grasp of all events in the entire span of time. There is no incompatibility with free will.

What I am arguing here is not that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with free will but that the lack of human free will is incompatible with theism.

I welcome any theist telling me that he/she believes human free will does not exist, and being prepared to defend that notion from a theistic perspective…..

Best Regards

 

[arildno]

And this is supposed to make rational sense? If God created me the way I am, and I had no choice about it, I sure hope He realizes the smell is His own doing!

Yet again, you attribute human qualities,motivations and justifications to a non-human being in a simplistic and naive manner.

Your response is not a rebuttal to my statement that the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will (in fact your response is totally irrelevant to the issue).
Which particular “heathens” are consigned to hell depends on which “God” is in charge, doesn’t it?

Oh dear, oh dear!
Whenever was a BELIEF in someone as your saviour an ETHICALLY RELEVANT CRITERION?
It is religionists who set up belief in some saviour as the prime criterion for not being punished by God, that is, religionists are propounding a fundamentally non-ethical (in my view, un-ethical) theory.
Furthermore, whenever has devotion to a non-human been an ETHICAL or MORAL issue??


This shows that properly ETHICAL concerns (like that of free will) are, at best, secondary for religionists (and, in my view, for the most part absent).
If you re-read my original post, that's what I was concerned with.

There IS no rational (or moral) sense in the theist's worldview, his premise is nonsensical.
End of story.

 

[Smurf]

Your response is not a rebuttal to my statement that the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will (in fact your response is totally irrelevant to the issue).

Why does that need to be refuted? Maybe I missed something but why exactly is the significance of theism and free will going hand in hand?

 

[arildno]

It is because moving finger wants to go on to show the converse:
That anyone believing in free will should also be a theist.

 

[Smurf]

I welcome any theist telling me that he/she believes human free will does not exist, and being prepared to defend that notion from a theistic perspective…..

I don't believe it, but I don't see why it's so hard to defend.

You're main point is that because we eventually receive divine judgement and sentenced to eternal reward (heaven) or punishment (hell); We must have free will, because a divine being would not punish us for the things we don't have free will over. But how do you prove that God wouldn't punish us just for the sake of it? And reward others just for the sake of it?

Sure, it violates western concepts of justice, but our concept of justice also assumes free will, so it's not really relevant.

 

[Smurf]

It is because moving finger wants to go on to show the converse:
That anyone believing in free will should also be a theist.

How would he do that? Just because theism requires free will doesn't mean free will requires theism...

 

[arildno]

How would he do that? Just because theism requires free will doesn't mean free will requires theism...

Well, honestly, I can't figure out the relevance of his idea, unless it is to proceed onwards to show that the converse holds as well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, honestly, I can't figure out the relevance of his idea, unless it is to proceed onwards to show that the converse holds as well.

His idea is that Christian theodicy without what he calls libertarian free will is monstrous.

For if we stink in the nostrils of god, and have no freedom to make our own stink independent of god, then what god is punisihing us for is his own handiwork.

Note that far from being trivial, this precise question troubled Paul. For he considered the case of god and the Pharaoh of the Exodus. God tells Moses that he will harden Pharaoh's heart to mke him resist the departure of the Israelites. Then when, presumably as a result of god's action, Pharaoh pursues the children of Israel into the bed of the divided sea, god overwhelms him and his (blameless?) troops. Who is being punished for what? Paul concludes that some people are just cursed from the day they are born.

 

[arildno]

His idea is that Christian theodicy without what he calls libertarian free will is monstrous.

It isn't??
That's news to me..

To say that prescriptions of behaviour laid down by an all-powerful deity SHOULD be regarded as morally authoritative just because it is a deity who has proclaimed them is, in my view, the basic monstrosity festering beneath every prescriptive religion.

However, for the religionist, the ultimate justification of assigning a particular moral value to some behaviour/action is precisely "that God has said it is so".

 

[neophysique]

I don't believe it, but I don't see why it's so hard to defend.

You're main point is that because we eventually receive divine judgement and sentenced to eternal reward (heaven) or punishment (hell); We must have free will, because a divine being would not punish us for the things we don't have free will over. But how do you prove that God wouldn't punish us just for the sake of it? And reward others just for the sake of it?

Sure, it violates western concepts of justice, but our concept of justice also assumes free will, so it's not really relevant.

Well, the whole purpose of heaven and hell was to persuade believers
into doing good and bad, as judged by God. If God didn't give us free
will then, heaven and hell as well as morality itself would become pointless since we become mere
puppets of God. Every action we make then can be attributed to God
so that we can blame everything on God.

 

[loseyourname]

Smurf seemed to concede that, pointing out that it violates a western concept of justice but not necessarily other concepts. One, I'd like to know what concept of justice doles out punishment, that does not serve as a deterrent, when the actor being punished was not responsible for his acts. Two, since Christianity is a western religion, shouldn't its doctrines be in accordance with western concepts of justice?

 

[moving finger]

And this is supposed to make rational sense? If God created me the way I am, and I had no choice about it, I sure hope He realizes the smell is His own doing!

Yet again, you attribute human qualities,motivations and justifications to a non-human being in a simplistic and naive manner.

Arildno, wise as you undoubtedly are, it seems that you don’t understand the human notion of “irony”
This reply is the typical theistic response “don’t try to understand the will of God, because God is beyond your mortal comprehension”.
Perhaps you can help us with your obviously much greater wisdom – what is the “non-simplistic” way of looking at this?

Why does that need to be refuted?

Nothing “needs to be refuted”. If one agrees with the notion that the theist is forced to believe in libertarian free will then there is nothing to refute.

It is because moving finger wants to go on to show the converse:
That anyone believing in free will should also be a theist.

Arildno – thanks for presuming to answer for me, but you are hopelessly wrong.
Why would anyone think that someone who believes in free will should be a theist? What rational reason could there be for such a position?

You're main point is that because we eventually receive divine judgement and sentenced to eternal reward (heaven) or punishment (hell); We must have free will, because a divine being would not punish us for the things we don't have free will over. But how do you prove that God wouldn't punish us just for the sake of it? And reward others just for the sake of it?

I’m not claiming to be able to prove that God wouldn’t punish us just for the sake of it, I am claiming this is not part of normal theistic belief. Are there any theists out there who would agree with such an interpretation?

Sure, it violates western concepts of justice, but our concept of justice also assumes free will, so it's not really relevant.

I disagree - our concept of secular justice certainly does not assume (libertarian) free will – inho the concept of libertarian free will is irrational and incoherent, and secular justice works quite well (in both theory and practice) without it

His idea is that Christian theodicy without what he calls libertarian free will is monstrous.

Agreed

Well, the whole purpose of heaven and hell was to persuade believers into doing good and bad, as judged by God. If God didn't give us free will then, heaven and hell as well as morality itself would become pointless since we become mere puppets of God. Every action we make then can be attributed to God so that we can blame everything on God.

Agreed.

 

[neophysique]

Smurf seemed to concede that, pointing out that it violates a western concept of justice but not necessarily other concepts. One, I'd like to know what concept of justice doles out punishment, that does not serve as a deterrent, when the actor being punished was not responsible for his acts. Two, since Christianity is a western religion, shouldn't its doctrines be in accordance with western concepts of justice?

Seems there's only one concept of justice: A set of rules is agreed
upon by which violating or upholding them leads to specified
consequences. For Christianity for example, the rules might
be the 10 commandments and the consequences being
heaven and hell. The option for one to uphold or violate these
rules is synonymous with free will. Justice means to decide between
two different options. If one were predistined to violate a rule then there was no decision made by the party, hence one would not call that justice. It might be called history, but justice wouldn't sound rite.

Using this general concept of justice, if the Christian God were to send someone to heaven or hell against the rules he laid out for justice
(the ten commandments for example), he would be unjust and a
liar. People would distrust this concept of God or if they believed
would rather rebel against God than to serve him. There would
be no point in serving such a God.

And in the theistic case where man has no free will, the rules
set out by God for his carry out of justice in the form of
heaven and hell also becomes irrelevant. The Christian
God lays out 10 commandments to obey. Presumably if
one violates one or to be on the safe side, all 10 commandments,
one will go to hell. But since God made man violate those
commandments himself (no free will), he would have to
judge himself a sinner.

 

[moving finger]

And in the theistic case where man has no free will, the rules set out by God for his carry out of justice in the form of heaven and hell also becomes irrelevant. The Christian God lays out 10 commandments to obey. Presumably if one violates one or to be on the safe side, all 10 commandments, one will go to hell. But since God made man violate those commandments himself (no free will), he would have to judge himself a sinner. I think this was the point moving finger was getting at- judgment on mankind without free will makes God look ridiculous.

This sums it up, except the point I would make is that the theistic position, to make any rational sense at all, must be that humans have free will. Although it is logically possible that God could have created humans without free will, such a situation (as neophysique says) is ridiculous, and I doubt if any theist could entertain such a possibility. Thus, for a theist it is irrational to believe that human free will does not exist.

Best Regards

 

[selfAdjoint]

This sums it up, except the point I would make is that the theistic position, to make any rational sense at all, must be that humans have free will. Although it is logically possible that God could have created humans without free will, such a situation (as neophysique says) is ridiculous, and I doubt if any theist could entertain such a possibility. Thus, for a theist it is irrational to believe that human free will does not exist.

Best Regards

Of course various religious sects of the past have indeed represented the god of the Bible as a sadistic monster.

 

[neophysique]

Say you build a robot. You would be like God to the
robot. So we have simple case where God creates
something without free will. Say you also have two
buttons that the robot can press, with an instruction
saying 'press right button to blow yourself up' ; 'press
left button to grease yourself'. Now, you, God, can
program the robot to avoid self destruction so
that it will always press the left button or conversely
to be a sadistic mofo and always press the right.

Clearly, without free will, it's nonsensical to judge whether
the robots did something stupid or smart. In fact, God would
have no one to judge but himself for his blown up robots.

A theology based on no free will would contain a short bible
reading something like "Thou shall not do this nor that...
because thou can't"

 

[Les Sleeth]

The Christian God lays out 10 commandments to obey. Presumably if one violates one or to be on the safe side, all 10 commandments, one will go to hell. But since God made man violate those commandments himself (no free will), he would have to judge himself a sinner.

Of course, the problem with these types of discussions is that we must divorce ourselves from reality to discuss issues intellectually. No one is questioning all the assumptions we need to have in order to talk about things. Above you say the "Christian God," and I understand you are talking about Christian religious theology, but Jesus is the guy who everyone has claimed they are representing with their religion. Are they? What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance? If we include Jewish doctrine, then Moses was the man. Where does he talk about hell?

In every case I know of where "religion" has followed the inner realization of someone, it isn't long before everyone has tacked on tons of spiritual, moral, theocratic, judgmental, supernatural (you name it) concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with the originator's realization. Religion is one thing, and that original realization is something altogether different.

So I suppose to give our intellects a little exercise we can assume a God capable of creation is so petty he punishes people and even tortures them in hell, but there is no realized person I've ever studied who claimed that. It's nasty-minded Renaissance authors, popes, imams, patriarchal mindsets, etc. who dream up these horrors out of their own fears, arrogance, and hatred.

 

[Rader]

What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance?

Then what did He mean when He spoke to the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him on his right and left? Is there another interpretation that mabybe I have missed?

 

[selfAdjoint]

In addition to the saying Rader cited there is also "Do not fear the earthly judges who can take life, but fear the one who can assign the soul to gehenna". And what about the "Lake of undying fire reserved for the devil and his followers".

The idea that Jesus was all sweetness and light does not survive serious contact with the gospels.

 

[neophysique]

Of course, the problem with these types of discussions is that we must divorce ourselves from reality to discuss issues intellectually. No one is questioning all the assumptions we need to have in order to talk about things. Above you say the "Christian God," and I understand you are talking about Christian religious theology, but Jesus is the guy who everyone has claimed they are representing with their religion. Are they? What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance? If we include Jewish doctrine, then Moses was the man. Where does he talk about hell?

In every case I know of where "religion" has followed the inner realization of someone, it isn't long before everyone has tacked on tons of spiritual, moral, theocratic, judgmental, supernatural (you name it) concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with the originator's realization. Religion is one thing, and that original realization is something altogether different.

So I suppose to give our intellects a little exercise we can assume a God capable of creation is so petty he punishes people and even tortures them in hell, but there is no realized person I've ever studied who claimed that. It's nasty-minded Renaissance authors, popes, imams, patriarchal mindsets, etc. who dream up these horrors out of their own fears, arrogance, and hatred.

Jesus may not have talked much if at all about hell but he did
talk sometimes about angels demons and a lot about salvation and
heaven. So, the concept of rewards and punishments in the
afterlife seems central to Christianity. I kind of get the impression
the relationship of this God is like a parent with his children.
One common tactic to control children (without taking
away their free will) is thru rewards and punishments.
Rewards seem to be more effective means of control (so
I think Islam has a better salespitch). Punishment might be necessary
to control the wilder kids. Wouldn't there be more crime, at least
on Earth now, if there were no threats and eventual realization of punishment?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Jesus may not have talked much if at all about hell . . .

He said nothing definitive at all about it.

. . . but he did talk sometimes about angels demons and a lot about salvation and heaven.

He said nothing that can't be realisitically interpreted (i.e., without the slightest stretch) as someone speaking in the language and colloquialisms of the day. I was reading a Richard Dawkins paper yesterday, a devout athiest, explaining how he and others like Hawking, Einstein, et al might refer to the mind of God but it didn't mean they believed in God; it is merely a way to refer to the laws/nature of reality. In Socrates time, people who knew there were no "gods" still expressed things using the gods concept. Similarly, one way to speak about the insane in Jesus' time was to say they were possessed by devils, or one might attribute something to angels. To extrapolate from that to saying Jesus believed in the devil or angels is a huge leap indeed (though Christians make that sort of leap all the time too . . . of course, evolutionists leap from simple adaptive microevolution processes to the development of all life forms, same unwarranted induction if you ask me).

Also, keep in mind we have no witnesses reporting Jesus' words (unless we allow Thomas into the Bible); all of it is passed down by word of mouth by people who were already adjusting the story to impress the superstitious populace with miracles and the like. Terms like "son of God" also are more realistically interpreted as metaphor rather than literally as, again, the superstitious and mostly uneducated people interpreted it.

So, the concept of rewards and punishments in the afterlife seems central to Christianity. I kind of get the impression
the relationship of this God is like a parent with his children. One common tactic to control children (without taking away their free will) is thru rewards and punishments. Rewards seem to be more effective means of control (so I think Islam has a better salespitch). Punishment might be necessary to control the wilder kids.

It is central to Old Testament Christianity (i.e., fundamentalist), but not because it has anything to do with Jesus (remember, that is my main point here). If you study the history of the development of Judaic culture, and their claimed relationship with God as his "chosen people," you will see it stems from their concept of a God who is like a father, and as you know, fathers, especially in that culture, were the disciplinarians. Much of this attribute can be seen as anthropomorphic because Judaic culture was patriarchal, and VERY strongly so.

The original culture was tribal, and like other pagan tribes in the area, they had their own god. When tribes fought, which they often did, each tribe would call on their god to help them in battle. If you won, your god was more powerful than the other god, etc. The Jews came to believe that their god was all powerful, but that the reason things went bad was because he was displeased with them. So they made a contract, a testament, to obey his rules. If they did, then they reasoned an all-powerful god would make things perfect for them; of course, when things went bad, they figured they were messing up somehow. (On the other hand, the story of Job illustrates their frustration with behaving what they believed was "perfect" and bad things still happening to one.)

That's why from Moses' simple realization and ten commandments, priests over the centuries added more and more rules; because things kept going wrong, so they figured they needed to do more. By the time of Solomon, there were 633 precepts the good Jew needed to obey to keep God happy.

Now all of this was fully ingrained into the culture when Jesus came around. It was enforced by law and threat of death through the theocracy because nobody wanted to piss off God. The first Christians were Jews, and many of them, including Peter, wanted Jewish law to be required for anyone to be a follower of Jesus. As you likely know, Paul was the one who successful lobbied against that idea. Nonetheless, the Old Testatement eventually became part of the Christian theology, and along with it the old patriarchal, God as displinarian and judger with it.

The question I raise is, was that anything Jesus taught? I say, absolutely not because you can see him purposely disobeying the Law; in fact, that is why, ostensibly, he was crucified. So back to my point, which is that much of the stuff we attribute to Christ just isn't true, it is added by later generations of theologians just like people added stuff to what Moses taught. Yet the religious often accept it all blindly without understanding where it comes from, why it is part of the religion, etc.

Wouldn't there be more crime, at least on Earth now, if there were no threats and eventual realization of punishment?

Sure, but would be true even without Christianity or any other religion. We have a legal system that serves in that capacity rather effectively, so of course those who develop a religion might build legal stuff into it.

But at the risk of boring you with repetition, that still doesn't mean it derives from Jesus. Everybody talks about the evils/ignorance etc. of Christianity (or some other religion), and that is fine as long as we realize that because a belief system attaches somebody's name to it doesn't mean it represents that person.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then what did He mean when He spoke to the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him on his right and left? Is there another interpretation that mabybe I have missed?

He spoke of heaven there, not hell.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In addition to the saying Rader cited there is also "Do not fear the earthly judges who can take life, but fear the one who can assign the soul to gehenna". And what about the "Lake of undying fire reserved for the devil and his followers".

Well, have you ever said hell, or "for heaven's sake" or "she's an angel," or any of the other of dozens of phrases common to our language that have religious or supernatural implications? It is downright silly to take every word Jesus said, or without taking into account what later redactors added, as literal truth. What if Jesus was trying to reveal an experience, and not a theology? That experience won't be found by literally translating every phrase he (supposedly) uttered.

The idea that Jesus was all sweetness and light does not survive serious contact with the gospels.

Well, I have never said he was all sweetness at least (light maybe). Why can't an enlightened person get mad at jerks? I don't see a problem with righteous anger.

 

[arildno]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned off to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

I don't understand you at all. Who cares what the "Christian God" is or isn't? You openly criticize religion (and that is putting it mildly), and then stoop to arguing about its nonsensical concepts.

Why bother? Religion is pieced together, with pieces here trying to fit with aspects of reality, and pieces there trying to fit with other aspects. It isn't a study of reality and then an objective report. It is a priori beliefs that determine how things are interpreted for everyday situations that involve morality, etc. All of it is lacking any sort of true foundation.

See, the problem is, IMHO, you can't distinguish the God question from religion. To you they are the same thing.

But some thinking people wonder why the universe can't be conscious as a whole. Why not? Consciousness developed didn't it? So we know it is possible. What is wrong with the idea that it developed before the universe and then assisted in its evolution? There needn't be anything "supernatural" about all this, and one needn't accept religion to consider it.

 

[arildno]

True enough.
But what you would have then is not a PRESCRIPTIVE religion, you might call it a contemplative religion.

That's perfectly fine by me, but such contemplative religions haven't shown themselves to be stable social phenomena, have they?
They seem to flourish among a few individuals from time to time, but die out with these individuals, or get warped into something unrecognizable very soon.


And, by the way, it is precisely because the foundations of Christianity (and of Islam and..) are nonsensical that their proponents should be criticized. Unremittingly so.

 

[Rader]

He spoke of heaven there, not hell.

What do you think he had in mind for what he did not speak, did he need any words? The message has endured 20 centuries, believe or not humans have followed it.

As I have said before interpretations of words do not express meanings of anything more than what you think you know and that is an interpretation of something totally different from what you will ever know but sometimes we get awful close to maybe what might have been intended to be understood.

In effect we are all an invention of our own experience.

If we assume that the divinity and humanity was commonly shared by Jesus Christ the message to be understood when He said to the thief on the cross that this day you will be with me in Paradise, compiles the whole meaning of what it is to be human. Humans know what ought to be. They have a choice.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, have you ever said hell, or "for heaven's sake" or "she's an angel," or any of the other of dozens of phrases common to our language that have religious or supernatural implications? It is downright silly to take every word Jesus said, or without taking into account what later redactors added, as literal truth. What if Jesus was trying to reveal an experience, and not a theology? That experience won't be found by literally translating every phrase he (supposedly) uttered.

In other words to hell with the documents, I am going to make up the Jesus that fits my preconceptions and talk a blue streak to try to bully people into not objecting.

The gospels, and maybe some of the papyruses that have been found, are the only evidence we have about what Jesus said. To play games with their text in this way is to abandon any legitimate scholarship for sheer fantasy.

Well, I have never said he was all sweetness at least (light maybe). Why can't an enlightened person get mad at jerks? I don't see a problem with righteous anger.

Well the problem is, the god of the old testament (one other saying that I suppose you will obfuscate away is that not a jot nor tittle of it will be abandoned) is every bit as much a jerk as any villain in the new testament.

 

[neophysique]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

I think moving finger's point was that theism without free will would
be irrational. So when you write "That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements", you seem to be agreeing to his
conclusion.

How many religions can you think of that is not prescriptive. I can't think of any. Every one
of them have books that write down what their God wants its followers to do. If
the followers have no free will, those words were a waste of paper.

I think the deal with Jesus Christ being our saviour was borrowed from the concept of
sacrificing cows and the like to atone for a sin committed from the Old Testament (like
Moses in Leviticus). Jesus Christ was like the ultimate beef. If he already sacrificed
for our sins, why do we need to be cleansed again? This line of theologian interpretation
then seems like a dead end.

 

[loseyourname]

This is starting to border on a specifically doctrinal discussion, guys. Try to keep with rational theology and away from scripture and revelation.

 

[arildno]

How many religions can you think of that is not prescriptive. I can't think of any. Every one
of them have books that write down what their God wants its followers to do. If
the followers have no free will, those words were a waste of paper.

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

 

[neophysique]

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

What are the major concerns in religion then? It seems to
me that, at least in the three major religions, a major
concern is in the afterlife. In Christianity and Islam,
this is heaven and hell. In Hinduism it is reincarnation.
The Gods in these religions give man a set of rules
to follow to decide their fate in the afterlife. If the afterlife
was not a major concern, a major selling point, why should
people care what God tells them to do? The fact that a majority
of the people who believe in these three religions live probably
average lives at best and probably more likely to be suffering
in poverty and poor health should have made them atheists a
long time ago if God was supposed to help their lives out
now and not later by living a life prescribed by their Gods, their religions.

So, is free will a main concerin in religions? I think so because without
free will, the rules of behavior given by Gods in religions would become
irrelevant. A robot that is programmed to only say No cannot
be coerced, even by pointing a gun at its head, to say Yes.

I guess God could turn out to be unjust and change his mind
about what he revealed to his seers ( seeing how
man has edited and altered his words so many times anyways) so that free will would
become irrelevant to his judgment, but since God cannot be proven
guilty until one is dead, free will will always be central to religions.