God's punishment

[McCulloch]

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:

1. Vengeance or retribution -- Does God benefit from the suffering of the wrongdoers?
2. Rehabilitation, Education or Reform -- With no chance for parole, this hardly seems the case.
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. Restoration -- Is God lacking something that could be restored by sinner's torment?
6. Denunciation or Condemnation

Are there any other valid justifications for punishment?

[NonSum]

Hello McCulloch,
All of the options you listed are man orientated. Either the option directly works to the benefit of man, or benefits God by relying upon man. I would suggest that whatever acts God performs, including the two you mentioned (i.e. torment & reward), are done by God, for God. His is the only will, and His is the only way. As to the 'why' of His will and way in this instance, these can never be known to man.

"For what a man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." (I Cor. 2: 11-12)

Man, punished or rewarded, is nothing at all about man, since man is taken as a thing of no account.

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isa 2:22)

My advice, and that of the Bible, is to give no concern to whether or not anyone from this world were to suffer everlasting torment, or an eternal reward in heaven. We are told to "make no provision for the flesh." Nor are we to care for the things of this world, since neither does the Lord.

"Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (I John 2:15)

[realthinker]

Hello McCulloch,
All of the options you listed are man orientated. Either the option directly works to the benefit of man, or benefits God by relying upon man. I would suggest that whatever acts God performs, including the two you mentioned (i.e. torment & reward), are done by God, for God. His is the only will, and His is the only way. As to the 'why' of His will and way in this instance, these can never be known to man.

"For what a man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God." (I Cor. 2: 11-12)

Man, punished or rewarded, is nothing at all about man, since man is taken as a thing of no account.

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isa 2:22)

My advice, and that of the Bible, is to give no concern to whether or not anyone from this world were to suffer everlasting torment, or an eternal reward in heaven. We are told to "make no provision for the flesh." Nor are we to care for the things of this world, since neither does the Lord.

"Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (I John 2:15)

Any god who demands certain behavior and yet holds man accountable in a fashion that man cannot understand cannot be just, or merciful, nor even good.

[NonSum]

Any god who demands certain behavior and yet holds man accountable in a fashion that man cannot understand cannot be just, or merciful, nor even good.

NS: This would be true from a man's limited, human centric, perspective. But, the universe is not, much to man's chagrin, 'human centric.' Rather, it is God centric, and what mankind thinks is of "no account."

If you are indeed a, "real thinker," then you must realize that one must always allow for a situation to alter as one takes in the larger context. For example: 'a large man tackles a running child, throwing her roughly to the ground, and then begins to place his hands all over her.' This is clearly an assault, and very likely a sexual assault at that. Yet, when we discover that the frightened girl's clothing was on fire, an entirely new perspective can be taken.

Likewise, we do not have a god-like perspective, and thus cannot adequately judge a "merciful, just, or good" action taken by any entity that does have such a perspective. To have any confidence in our limited human attempts to judge godly actions only speaks poorly of our own ability to be just.

"Put no confidence in the way of the flesh." (Php3:3)

[McCulloch]

All of the options you listed are man orientated.

I fully admit to being a human and a humanist.

Either the option directly works to the benefit of man, or benefits God by relying upon man. I would suggest that whatever acts God performs, including the two you mentioned (i.e. torment & reward), are done by God, for God. His is the only will, and His is the only way. As to the 'why' of His will and way in this instance, these can never be known to man.

The standard exegetical, apologetic and hermeneutic cop out, "It is a mystery." God does not make sense, therefore do not try to understand God.

Man, punished or rewarded, is nothing at all about man, since man is taken as a thing of no account.

According to the writers of the Bible, God is quite concerned with humans. Humans are made in God's own image. God became human to redeem humans from their sin. God has decreed this punishment for humans, and yet the apologists for God side-step the question about what possible justification there might be for this punishment. I have listed a few justifications for punishment. Feel free to provide others. Otherwise, the God portrayed by the Evangelical Christians seems either uncaring and arbitrary or sadistic and cruel.

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isa 2:22)

But for things such as this, we only have human understanding to rely on. Even if you follow the Bible, you had to come to trust the Bible by human understanding, your own and possibly that of others.

My advice, and that of the Bible, is to give no concern to whether or not anyone from this world were to suffer everlasting torment, or an eternal reward in heaven.

Actually, the writers of the Bible seem to say the exact opposite.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

We are told to "make no provision for the flesh." Nor are we to care for the things of this world, since neither does the Lord.

You are misapplying that quote. Romans 13 is not discussing whether to trust human wisdom nor is it discussing loving the world and the things in the world. The context of that quote is about sin, specifically, carousing, drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, sensuality, strife and jealousy

Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

You could have made your point with other passages. It weakens your argument when you quote a passage out of context and misapply it to the current situation.

"Do not love the world, or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." (I John 2:15)

This is not about loving the world, or the things in the world. It is about whether the word punishment when used by Christian apologists has the same meaning as the word used in any other human context or whether this word is another victim of the ongoing theological word redefinition project.

[Scotracer]

I'd say it's vengeance/revenge - there is no rehabilitation from Hell. It's not like you come out after a set amount of time, you just pay eternally.

Such a nice guy Jehovah is!

[NonSum]

I fully admit to being a human and a humanist.

And I fully admit to being a mystic, who denies his identity with humanity.

McCulloch: The standard exegetical, apologetic and hermeneutic cop out, "It is a mystery." God does not make sense, therefore do not try to understand God.

NS: If you say what the standard humanist would say to a given question regarding the primacy of humans, would my saying it was a "standard cop-out" be regarded as an intelligent refutation of your position?

Mc: According to the writers of the Bible, God is quite concerned with humans. Humans are made in God's own image. God became human to redeem humans from their sin.

NS: You and I know that there is no scripture, including and especially the Bible, that does not constantly contradict itself. I only used a few Biblical quotes to indicate that there does exist that perspective. Certainly not to indicate it to be the only one given. You did ask for "other" explanations.

"Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?" (Isa 2:22)

Mc: But for things such as this, we only have human understanding to rely on. Even if you follow the Bible, you had to come to trust the Bible by human understanding, your own and possibly that of others.

NS: I don't place my trust in any scripture, nor in human understanding. That is why I am here advocating my considered human understanding of 'human understanding's' inadequacy concerning most all metaphysical issues. Why are you so certain in human understanding's abilities to fathom the motives of others, let alone of gods?

Mc: Actually, the writers of the Bible seem to say the exact opposite.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

NS: Again, I am not inviting you to dueling with Biblical quotes. Who cannot find contradictory messages given by the variety of Biblical authors? You wished to know how someone could explain, or justify, hell and heaven. I find the omniscience of God to surpass by far any knowledge held by a human, including my own; therefore, I simply claim the appropriate insufficiency of data to judge those who know more of the matter than I. (see above response to previous poster)

Mc: This is not about loving the world, or the things in the world. It is about whether the word punishment when used by Christian apologists has the same meaning as the word used in any other human context or whether this word is another victim of the ongoing theological word redefinition project.

NS: This is all about loving the things of this world. Because humanity (its punishments, and its rewards) is a thing of this world. A Christian mystic does not regard himself as being capable of punishment or of reward. He takes himself to be pure spirit, i.e. God's breath in the nostrils, and discounts all besides that breath as a thing of no account. Burn it, crown it, who gives a damn. Not my affair. The only ones who are capable of eternal torment are those who cling to sin, i.e. the flesh. The only one who is in heaven is God, including His breath.

Your conditions were to accept the evangelical premise, but not necessarily to respond in defense of it as if one were themselves an evangelical. My take on certain scriptural quotes is just that, 'my take' as a mystic. As such, I take quotes referencing hells and heavens less literally than some child who lacks "ears to hear" what is actually being said. From this more spiritual, and less physical, perspective, God's "acts" can appear quite reasonable. While, I would likely agree with you if I too took a shallow literalist pov.

[McCulloch]

If you say what the standard humanist would say to a given question regarding the primacy of humans, would my saying it was a "standard cop-out" be regarded as an intelligent refutation of your position?

I have not stated nor is it the position of humanists that humans have any kind of primacy.

According to the writers of the Bible, God is quite concerned with humans. Humans are made in God's own image. God became human to redeem humans from their sin.

You and I know that there is no scripture, including and especially the Bible, that does not constantly contradict itself. I only used a few Biblical quotes to indicate that there does exist that perspective. Certainly not to indicate it to be the only one given. You did ask for "other" explanations.

It is the position of many of the writers of the Bible that humans are important to God. This is also the Evangelical Christian belief. Combine that with their belief that the Bible is consistent.

I don't place my trust in any scripture, nor in human understanding. That is why I am here advocating my considered human understanding of 'human understanding's' inadequacy concerning most all metaphysical issues. Why are you so certain in human understanding's abilities to fathom the motives of others, let alone of gods?

Do you trust anything? If you claim to trust God then you are still left with the difficulty of determining which messages come from God and which messages do not. I'll bet that you rely on human understanding for that determination.

You wished to know how someone could explain, or justify, hell and heaven.

And I am still waiting. Does the word punishment as used by Evangelical Christians to describe eternal torment for unbelievers mean anything?

[NonSum]

Hello,
McCulloch: I have not stated nor is it the position of humanists that humans have any kind of primacy.

"Humanism is any philosophy which recognizes the value or dignity of man and makes him the measure of all things." (Encylopedia of Philosophy)

NS: A standard against which all things are measured is certainly a "kind of primacy." But, no matter. My point was that a statement is to be refuted, not simply labeled "a cop out." I've no doubt that a bright boychic, such as yourself can do better.

Mc: It is the position of many of the writers of the Bible that humans are important to God. This is also the Evangelical Christian belief. Combine that with their belief that the Bible is consistent.

NS: No doubt "many believe" many things, including that the Bible is composed by extraterestrial aliens, or, at least, takes aliens for its true subject matter. What has that got to do with what 'some' Biblical authors are addressing, and what 'some' Biblical exegetes understand it to be saying? Christian mysticism has existed as long as Christiainity, and mysticism millennia before that.

I realize that you were waiting, spider like, in anticipation for some "evangelical" ant to pick up your topic so that you may then leap upon them, and so mock their beliefs. But, this only works if you too take those beliefs in there most naive form.

What I am attempting to present to you is a sublimated understanding that renders the apparent absurdity of some statements into something good and elevating. When Jesus mentions, "those with ears," he is indicating that there is an inobvious message not accessible to those limited in wit to the obvious alone. That elevated message is an "other" that you requested hearing. But now the question is, do You 'have ears to hear'?

Mc: Do you trust anything? If you claim to trust God then you are still left with the difficulty of determining which messages come from God and which messages do not. I'll bet that you rely on human understanding for that determination.

NS: One either trusts in the mind (one's own, or that of others), or they trust in their own spiritual Self-consciousness, which transcends conceptual knowledge. The finite human mind is fine for finite human concerns, but is wholely inadequate for infinite matters. I think that we'd agree that God is generally taken as that which is eternal and infinite, and therefore not the proper object for finite tools to grasp. That evangelicals, and others, try to grasp God with their minds is, as you say, 'common.' That the attempt fails horribly is the common result. That clear (to you) failure is why you hope to catch an evangelical in your web.

Mc: And I am still waiting. Does the word punishment as used by Evangelical Christians to describe eternal torment for unbelievers mean anything?

NS: Yes, it means that those who hold to the flesh (body & brain), taking it for who they are, are doomed by their own act to suffer. Buddhists too, speak of the common fate of suffering (dukka), and also how to end that suffering by gaining Nirvana (Heaven). This is why the Bible speaks of "denying your self," and "dying to the self, so that you may live an eternal life." To live in the flesh, rather than in the spirit, is a "punishment."

I am currently writing a series on Christian Mysticism down on the Discussion forum, that may interest you when you tire of tripping up fools, and would like to know what religion is really saying. Link: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=11912

[McCulloch]

I have not stated nor is it the position of humanists that humans have any kind of primacy.

"Humanism is any philosophy which recognizes the value or dignity of man and makes him the measure of all things." (Encylopedia of Philosophy)

The difficulty inherent in defining humanism is summed up in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences' entry on Humanism:

Humanism as a technical term and as an intellectual or moral conception has always leaned heavily on its etymology. That which is characteristically human, not supernatural, that which belongs to man and not to external nature, that which raises man to his greatest height or gives him, as man, his greatest satisfaction, is apt to be called humanism.

Humanism thus means many things. It may be the reasonable balance of life that the early humanists discovered in the Greeks; it may be merely the study of the humanities or polite letters; it may be the freedom from religiosity and the vivid interest in all sides of life of a Queen Elizabeth or a Benjamin Franklin; it may be the responsiveness to all human passions of a Shakespeare or a Goethe; or it may be a philosophy of which man is the center and sanction.

My own humanism certainly does not make humans the measure of all things. However, humanism does admit that human ethics should be centered on human concerns.

My point was that a statement is to be refuted, not simply labeled "a cop out."

But you have not made a statement other than to say that it is not known.

I've no doubt that a bright boychic, such as yourself can do better.

It may be a good thing that I am ignorant of the term boychic. That way I will not know if I have been insulted.

I realize that you were waiting, spider like, in anticipation for some "evangelical" ant to pick up your topic so that you may then leap upon them, and so mock their beliefs. But, this only works if you too take those beliefs in there most naive form.

You've got me! My motives have been laid bare. I truly have no desire to engage believers in defending their beliefs. I only wish to mock. Apparently with much satisfaction over the few years I have been posting here.

What I am attempting to present to you is a sublimated understanding that renders the apparent absurdity of some statements into something good and elevating. When Jesus mentions, "those with ears," he is indicating that there is an inobvious message not accessible to those limited in wit to the obvious alone. That elevated message is an "other" that you requested hearing. But now the question is, do You 'have ears to hear'?

Sure. Provide some evidence.

Do you trust anything? If you claim to trust God then you are still left with the difficulty of determining which messages come from God and which messages do not. I'll bet that you rely on human understanding for that determination.

One either trusts in the mind (one's own, or that of others), or they trust in their own spiritual Self-consciousness, which transcends conceptual knowledge.

I must be in the first category. I don't know what spiritual self-consciousness is. I have no idea how to transcend conceptual knowledge.

The finite human mind is fine for finite human concerns, but is wholely inadequate for infinite matters.

Tell that to Koch, Cantor, Hilbert, Peano, Frege and Dedekind.

I think that we'd agree that God is generally taken as that which is eternal and infinite, and therefore not the proper object for finite tools to grasp.

No, we would not.

I am currently writing a series on Christian Mysticism down on the Discussion forum, that may interest you when you tire of tripping up fools, and would like to know what religion is really saying. Link: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=11912

It probably is not a good thing to call those who may choose to debate a certain position fools, regardless of whether I manage to trip them up.