Assume that the Evangelical Christian view is correct. God will see to it that unbelievers will be punished in eternal torment while believers will be forgiven because of their faith in Jesus.
What is the purpose of this punishment:
Vengeance or retribution -- Does God benefit from the suffering of the wrongdoers?
Rehabilitation, Education or Reform -- With no chance for parole, this hardly seems the case.
Incapacitation or Societal protection -- One justification for punishment is to remove the offender’s ability to commit further offenses. Is this purpose served in eternal torment?
Deterrence or Prevention -- If this is the purpose, then it would be much better served if we could have some tangible evidence that the wrongdoers are really now in torment. Right?
Restoration -- Is God lacking something that could be restored by sinner's torment?
Denunciation or Condemnation
Are there any other valid justifications for punishment?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians The truth will make you free. Gospel of John
NS, I'm pickin' up what yer puttin' down. I get it. Sorry, I thought I saw a "Theist" description in your bio or something. I was probably mistaken.
I also see your point of view. It seems a very poetic and satisfying way to explain things.
After all, as long as we are discussing the same thing, and not introducing novel and magic explanations, then I think it doesn't matter if we use poetic language or scientific language (which, I think has a poetry of its own, and a rigor but not as beautiful to the uninitiated).
My larger point, which you understood perfectly, is that Atheists and Theists are often talking about the same exact thing but one uses "day language" and the other "night language".
That's why you see so many Atheists use the term "God" (Hawking and Einstein, for example). They are using the term as "the great unknown" and personifying it for poetic impact - NOT because they thing there is a force out there thinking about them and plotting their demise.
Hi,
Ooberman: I'm pickin' up what yer puttin' down. I get it. Sorry, I thought I saw a "Theist" description in your bio or something. I was probably mistaken.
NS: Not a problem. Heaven knows I’ve been called worse…though, no a lot worse. ;^)
The misunderstanding likely derives from my response to McCulloch’s topic invitation to suggest another interpretation for the purpose of punishment. I defended “punishment� by offering a far less literal & theistic interpretation. Something along the order of a child who continues to lean against a hot stove. We might say to him, ‘so long as you keep doing that you will be punished by it’. A sort of, ‘the sinner punishes himself with his own sin.’
To my mind, McCulloch and realthinker are making the same error as the literalists that they fault, by ruling out the possibility of greater and greater symbolic interpretations. Religious scriptures are not intended to be read as some repair manual. Nor are all of its intended readers assumed to have identical I.Q.’s, and insight abilities. Rather, they are intended to speak at many levels, and all at the same time. That power is what makes them ‘holy scripture.’
Ooberman: After all, as long as we are discussing the same thing, and not introducing novel and magic explanations, then I think it doesn't matter if we use poetic language or scientific language (which, I think has a poetry of its own, and a rigor but not as beautiful to the uninitiated).
NS: Any “poetry� coming from moi is bound to be accidental. Your speaking of Al Einstein makes me think of his comment on this matter:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
Ooberman: My larger point, which you understood perfectly, is that Atheists and Theists are often talking about the same exact thing but one uses "day language" and the other "night language".
NS: I believe that ultimately all genuine seekers of true knowledge, and the wisdom that can be milked from it, are not as unalike as their methodology may make them appear. The few Hawkings and Einsteins should not be confused with the stereotypical “hard-minded scientist� that the majority of unimaginative scientists have created. Likewise, genuine seekers of spiritual Truth can easily be lost in, and typed by, the crowd of religious sheep whom actually seek very little beyond psychological reassurance. (Have another Einstein on this matter)
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
I think we generally agree. However, to keep the title of this forum alive, i'd debate the point about "religious scripture is not meant to be read...".
I'm not sure how the writers intended it to be read, but it certainly seems that they meant it to be read quite literally, or with HEAVY exegesis.
However, I am trying to imagine the writers thought process. For example, when John was writing Revelations, did he LITERALLY believe that four guys were going to be riding horses - or, true to the common mythology that existed at the time (the strong Greek and Roman method of personifying certain things as Gods (Fate, War, etc.), did he expect them to mean something in a personal way, or a more relevant way according to the common understanding of his culture (whether local or more general).
I am reminded of a statue that was erected after some Greek or Roman victory: It was The goddess of Peace, holding in her arms the infant of Prosperity.
It's very simple, but you can see the power of it: prosperity grows under the care of Peace. Do the gods actually exist? Well, Peace and Prosperity exist... ergo... well, no, of course we don't believe they exist.
Theists, IMO, often make this mistake. They call their God the God of Love, Logic, Creation, etc. and see that love, logic and creation exist, ergo... their god must exist!
Oobermann: I'm not sure how the writers intended it to be read, but it certainly seems that they meant it to be read quite literally, or with HEAVY exegesis.
NS: As I understand it, the old and new testaments were composed over a period of 1300 years, and its several original author's efforts have been roughly handled by at least that many editors for more than twice as long. But, that is not to say that original diamonds, carefully disguised, cannot be found in the general muck. Nor that insightful editors have not massaged some black carbon into new gems, along the way.
The foremost, and founding, Christian scriptural interpreter is Origen, who laid down two rules:
1. Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture.
2. The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.
As you can well imagine, this can leave a good deal of interpretive room for one and all to read it according to their own view of what is "God worthy." Origen creatively employed "allegorisms" to get passages up to "God worthyness."
Ooberman: Theists, IMO, often make this mistake. They call their God the God of Love, Logic, Creation, etc. and see that love, logic and creation exist, ergo... their god must exist!
NS: Yes, you make a valid point. Imagary, and personification, can grab the mind, especially of an illiterate, far better than subtle intellectual abstractions. It is then a small step for a childlike mind to take it all too literally and anthropomorphize qualities, and forces.
But, one can err by going to the other extreme of excessive conceptualizing. The earlier mentioned subatomic forces are more than just the equations that model them. And the several natural laws are not just random factors, but must themselves derive from a greater, unifying, law that necessitates the lesser laws to work in concert, lest they work against each other in a legal self-destruction.
Now, do we assume this 'greater unifying law' to be just one more inanimate function? Do we take its elaboratly complex functioning as the result of random unintelligent happenstance that just happens to produce, not only organized annimation, but also intelligence, and self-consciousness? That's a lot to ask from an abstract law, IMO.
I'm certainly not suggesting 'Creationism,' as I am an evolutionist. What I am suggesting is that the unifying source of all that is, is (like the internal and external forces that make and preserve that rock) a part and parcel with all that is, individually and universally much like a hologram. That is, that the essence of the universe is not less than any of its parts, since it is essentially those parts. So, if you have intelligence, and a self-conscious consciousness, these are not strictly speaking something that you made for yourself, but something that made you for its self. And that 'its self' is identical with your self.
It is a tenet of Mysticism that there is one true Self, and that it is the same self-conscious Self that we all ultimately are. When we say, "I am," (self, being) our minds jump to conceptual conclusions as to who that 'I' is, and what sort of being it is. But, our innate 'I-ness' is, like those formational laws, both immanent and transcendent to the particular person.
Are you familiar with the philosophers Hegel and Husserl? They get into the nuances of what I'm saying quite well.
"Spirit is known as self-consciousness and to this
self-consciousness it is immediately revealed, for Spirit is this
self-consciousness itself. The divine nature is the same as the
human, and it is this unity that is beheld." (Hegel, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit')
"In every way, then, it is clear that everything which is there for me in the world of things is on grounds of principle ‘only a presumptive reality’; that ‘I myself,’ on the contrary, for whom it is there am ‘absolute’ Reality, given through a positing that is unconditioned and simply indissoluble." (Husserl, 'Ideas, General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology')
McCulloch wrote:Assume that the Evangelical Christian view is correct. God will see to it that unbelievers will be punished in eternal torment while believers will be forgiven because of their faith in Jesus.
What is the purpose of this punishment:
Vengeance or retribution -- Does God benefit from the suffering of the wrongdoers?
Rehabilitation, Education or Reform -- With no chance for parole, this hardly seems the case.
Incapacitation or Societal protection -- One justification for punishment is to remove the offender’s ability to commit further offenses. Is this purpose served in eternal torment?
Deterrence or Prevention -- If this is the purpose, then it would be much better served if we could have some tangible evidence that the wrongdoers are really now in torment. Right?
Restoration -- Is God lacking something that could be restored by sinner's torment?
Denunciation or Condemnation
Are there any other valid justifications for punishment?
The devil is someone who won't return even when it's burnt. So it's all about how much the wicked will be like the devil. Or rather, how fast they will harden their hearts to lose their humanity and completely beast-like.
Earch is such a place with God's influence almost equal to the devil's influence, yet it won't take long (30 years?) for Hitler to turn to a complete demon. While hell is such a place where the devil's influence dominates, so comparatively how long will it take for those enslaved to lose their humanity?!
Rev: 8-10
8The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.
10The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony 11and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.
It implies that it's not impossible that people may just lose their ability to repent. And the only thing which can be done as a proof that they are unsavable is to give them the internal fire.
Hawkins wrote:It implies that it's not impossible that people may just lose their ability to repent. And the only thing which can be done as a proof that they are unsavable is to give them the internal fire.
Why can't they simply perish like the scriptures state?
Well God gave us an objective set of laws to follow and to disobey them would be sinning. God, and only God, is the Judge of these laws. As a judge, God MUST punish those who break the law.
Imagine if a mass murderer were to stand in front of a judge to be sentenced. If the judge acknowledges the guiltiness of the murderer but let's him go free without punishment.. you would call that judge an unrighteous, unjust, evil man.
God is proclaimed a righteous God and must not let a criminal go unpunished.. If He does, then He would be an unjust.. just like the judge who let the murderer go..
That is why God punishes people.. in order to display and uphold His righteousness.
Apart from Jesus, NO person will ever live their lives without sinning.. not ONE!
This is because of our human nature to sin.
Even a truly reborn Christian will struggle with sin because, although their spirits are reborn, their flesh remains worldly.
Every person who was, is, and will be has, is, and will sin in their lives..
And it takes only ONE sin to land you into Hell for an eternity...
SO this leads to the ultimate question.. How can God be just in His judging sinners, and still allow people into Heaven?
The answer is, of course, Jesus Christ!
Jesus, in place of sinners, suffered the punishment and wrath of God in Hell to satisfy God's judgement. Propitiation is the word that describes this act. So basically, Jesus took the punishment/sentence of that mass murderer in order to appease the law/God.
This act allows God to remain righteous and, at the same time, allows law-breaking people to enter Heaven.
Why did it have to be Jesus?
Well, no one would trade you a shack for a mansion.. or a cow for a barn full of cows...
In the same sense.. a man cannot repay the sins of ten men because in God's eyes, all men (successful or unsuccessful in life) are equal in value...
Jesus, however, is INFINITE in value because he IS God.... Jesus is able to repay the sins of a multitude of people because he WAY outweighs the value of the whole universe!!
Well God gave us an objective set of laws to follow and to disobey them would be sinning. God, and only God, is the Judge of these laws. As a judge, God MUST punish those who break the law.
Imagine if a mass murderer were to stand in front of a judge to be sentenced. If the judge acknowledges the guiltiness of the murderer but lets him go free without punishment.. you would call that judge an unrighteous, unjust, evil man.
God is proclaimed a righteous God and must not let a criminal go unpunished.. If He does, then He would be unjust.. just like the judge who let the murderer go..
That is why God punishes people.. in order to display and uphold His righteousness.
Apart from Jesus, NO person will ever live their lives without sinning.. not ONE!
This is because of our human nature to sin.
Even a truly reborn Christian will struggle with sin because, although their spirits are reborn, their flesh remains worldly.
Every person who was, is, and will be has, is, and will sin in their lives..
And it takes only ONE sin to land you into Hell for an eternity...
SO this leads to the ultimate question.. How can God be just in His judging sinners, and still allow people into Heaven?
The answer is, of course, Jesus Christ!
Jesus, in place of sinners, suffered the punishment and wrath of God in Hell to satisfy God's judgement. Propitiation is the word that describes this act. So basically, Jesus took the punishment/sentence of that mass murderer in order to appease the law/God.
This act allows God to remain righteous and, at the same time, allows law-breaking people (sinners) to enter Heaven.
Why did it have to be Jesus?
Well, no one would trade you a shack for a mansion.. or a cow for a barn full of cows...
In the same sense.. a man cannot repay the sins of ten men because in God's eyes, all men (successful or unsuccessful in life) are equal in value...
Jesus, however, is INFINITE in value because he IS God.... Jesus is able to repay the sins of a multitude of people because he WAY outweighs the value of the whole universe!!
Why did God send His own, His only begotten Son to suffer this wrath by his own Father's hand? Because God is Love and wanted to save us, despite our ugliness and worthlessness. This is why we praise Him!
I know I got a little "off topic" but that's how Christianity works.. EVERY thing, every concept and idea comes back to the Gospel~
I wish I could have explained the "off topic" stuff more clearly but I realize that your question was specific to "punishment"...
Thank you for the question and I hope my response helps clear anything on the topic up!
GarmentsofGod wrote:
Well God gave us an objective set of laws to follow and to disobey them would be sinning. God, and only God, is the Judge of these laws. As a judge, God MUST punish those who break the law.
Hold on to that thought. I think that you will be wanting to retract this.
GarmentsofGod wrote:
Imagine if a mass murderer were to stand in front of a judge to be sentenced. If the judge acknowledges the guiltiness of the murderer but lets him go free without punishment.. you would call that judge an unrighteous, unjust, evil man.
God is proclaimed a righteous God and must not let a criminal go unpunished.. If He does, then He would be unjust.. just like the judge who let the murderer go..
Imagine that a petty thief were to stand in front of a judge to be sentenced. If the judge imposes a sentence of three weeks of constant whipping or until the prisoner dies, we would also call the judge an unrighteous, unjust evil man. Where is the sense of proportion?
GarmentsofGod wrote:
Every person who was, is, and will be has, is, and will sin in their lives..
And it takes only ONE sin to land you into Hell for an eternity...
We cannot help but to sin. And for any sin, no matter how minor, we deserve eternal torment. And you have the audacity to call the creator and builder of such a system just?
GarmentsofGod wrote:
SO this leads to the ultimate question.. How can God be just in His judging sinners, and still allow people into Heaven?
Without violating the principle stated above, GOD MUST PUNISH THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW.
GarmentsofGod wrote:
The answer is, of course, Jesus Christ!
Jesus, in place of sinners, suffered the punishment and wrath of God in Hell to satisfy God's judgement. Propitiation is the word that describes this act. So basically, Jesus took the punishment/sentence of that mass murderer in order to appease the law/God.
Therefore, you admit that God does not have to punish those who break the law. He can transfer this punishment to Christ.
Let's return to your judge analogy. Imagine a judge with a mass murderer. He acknowledges the guilt of the man, but lets him off the hook because there is an innocent person willing to take the punishment in his stead. If the judge was willing to transfer the punishment to the other would be called unjust and evil. Right?
GarmentsofGod wrote:
This act allows God to remain righteous and, at the same time, allows law-breaking people (sinners) to enter Heaven.
No it does not. But even if it did, why will there be any who are not saved? Jesus, according to you, died for my sins, taking the punishment I deserved on himself. Why then would I still have to face eternal torment, merely because I don't believe your story?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good. First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians The truth will make you free. Gospel of John
